Would It Be So Bad if TNA Shut Down?

I am just throwing this out for consideration, but would it be the worst thing if TNA shut down. Now, clearly I don't wish this upon the people that will be directly effected. I am speaking only from the standpoint of a fan and I am only thinking out loud at this point.

It never seems like long before someone steps into the "second company" steps into the void. One has to think that the demand for wrestling (at least among its loyal population) and wrestling variety would cultivate the need for another company that is more easily accessible. With the coming of the WWE network, TNA is in real trouble. They can't keep up with that. They also aren't in a position to drastically alter their mode of existence. I tend to think whatever emerges as the number two most visible wrestling company will have to take up a new/creative model. Its online presence will have to be stronger. It's will depend more on streaming and less on traditional broadcast. It will also have to be more creative than I am.

The fact of the matter is, the space for a company to move into that spot wont open up until TNA shuts its doors. The talent and some of the minds in TNA will need to be involved. Additionally, the void created by TNA will be needed for a second company to gain the footing needed to gain momentum.

Personally, I can't watch TNA. I try. I want to like it. I want to support some of the guys I really like there, but I can't bear it very long. Again - aside from not wanting to put people out of work, I wouldn't really be moved if TNA shut its doors, not as a fan. I might even bee excited to see what moves are made in the business, of course hoping the talent in TNA finds its way to successful and fulfilling positions somewhere else.

purely from my position as a fan, I really couldn't care if TNA closed tomorrow.

The few wrestlers that I care about on their current roster, I would rather wrestler almost anywhere else.

I haven't even attempted to watch a full episode in a long time and have been turned-off by the company since about 2006/2007

between the removal and burial of the wrestlers that brought me to TNA and pushing of past their prime or "big" names, TNA is not the company I became a fan of.

I wonder if WWE even produces a DVD on The Fall and Fall of TNA Wrestling.

SBR wrote:I wonder if WWE even produces a DVD on The Fall and Fall of TNA Wrestling.

I doubt it.

I went to TNA's website before christmas and picked up all their compilation dvds that I didn't already have - well the ones worth having for me. $5 each... totally worth it.

if they did shut down I wouldn't mind I can go back to watching cbs thursday night line up instead flipping back and forth (any segment I missed on impact I go to YouTube to watch)

I'd be disappointed, but not shocked. I've been watching TNA since they were on Sun Sports back in 2003. I loved the company so much and its what truly got me into wrestling again. The company had so many possible stars and it was truly different from the WWE. It honestly had so much potential to get to a decent size where it could truly compete with the WWE's second tier show like Smackdown, but over the last few years they've conformed so much to what WWE is instead of being that alternative and as a fan from almost the beginning it truly sucks.

I do think there is a place for another company to be number 2, but I think it takes a few years before anyone gets to that point and I don't think ROH will be it, not as long as they are owned by Sinclair Broadcasting and can only reach so many markets. TNA has made it longer than many people predicted (Longer than ECW, and almost longer than WCW). They should be proud, I just have to agree that their time could truly be coming to an end, and if so while not surprised, I will be a bit sad to be honest.

I get that sort of passion for the company. I honestly do. I turn it on from time to time and I see all the talent there. I see glimmers of hope in the writing. I see talent working hard. I also see a company that has thrown that away time and time again. I understand your faith, but personally, I think it is misplaced now. I don't see TNA turning it around. I dont see them turning all that potential into product. I just fear they are sucking space, energy, and talent from the wrestling world.

SBR wrote:I wonder if WWE even produces a DVD on The Fall and Fall of TNA Wrestling.

Only if they decide to really push a TNA guy, like Styles, Truth, or Joe.

I would certainly feel more comfortable with TNA shutting down if there was another viable promotion capable of filling the void.

Granted, TNA has gotten so awful lately that there's really nothing left on the show to put a positive spin on, but it's a good thing to have a second promotion on national television. WWE can't and won't hire everyone, so even if TNA has been really bad lately, it's a good thing for another promotion to exist where they can work and be on TV regularly on.

eh. part of me wants TNA gone,part of me thinks they might be on an upswing.

they've done so much of the ground work it would be better if they stayed in business and just some competent people took it over.

The TNA most of us cared about is gone anyways. Sure there are a few of the guys around that I care about but the company its self doesnt even exist anymore. With Jarrett, Styles and now Sting (Rumored) gone, I could care less. I still need an alternative to wwe programming and ROH is only on for an hour a week and Its a highlight show not an actual show with full length matches. I have watched all of the dvds I own (near 600), I have scoured the web and youtube but there trully is no alternative. It sucks for those of us who have no interest in the wwe.

Hopefully the Jarrett rumors will save us all.

Ummm ROH tv isn't a highlight show.

JustSkiff wrote:Ummm ROH tv isn't a highlight show.

The one I get here is. I have yet to see a full match or a show that has more wrestling than promos or random highlights.

If you want wrestling, watch RAW.

Indy wrote:If you want wrestling, watch RAW.

I said wrestling, you should know better.

Indy wrote:If you want wrestling, watch late 90s torrents.

Modern WWE is terrible.  None of you would watch it if the indy darlings of 2005 weren't main eventing shows.

It's a watered down, neutered mess of a product engineered to appeal to an audience 15 years younger than anyone on this forum, functioning as its own self-parody that just so happens to mention the phrase "social media" 9731 times a show and uses phrases like "socially active" that make me think more of STDs than that wrestling is popular.

If Raw was two hours it would be the best wrestling show ever.

For real, Christ, You must not have watched RAW lately.

It is like 2 hours 30 minutes of wrestling. RAW HAS TOO MUCH WRESTLING.

Xero wrote:

Indy wrote:If you want wrestling, watch late 90s torrents.

Modern WWE is terrible.  None of you would watch it if the indy darlings of 2005 weren't main eventing shows.

It's a watered down, neutered mess of a product engineered to appeal to an audience 15 years younger than anyone on this forum, functioning as its own self-parody that just so happens to mention the phrase "social media" 9731 times a show and uses phrases like "socially active" that make me think more of STDs than that wrestling is popular.

I think I would. Or I would at least fast forward through it on dvr. But they have guys I enjoy that weren't indy stars.

Xero wrote:

Indy wrote:If you want wrestling, watch late 90s torrents.

Modern WWE is terrible.  None of you would watch it if the indy darlings of 2005 weren't main eventing shows.

It's a watered down, neutered mess of a product engineered to appeal to an audience 15 years younger than anyone on this forum, functioning as its own self-parody that just so happens to mention the phrase "social media" 9731 times a show and uses phrases like "socially active" that make me think more of STDs than that wrestling is popular.

I sympathize with the cynicism at work here. The fact of the matter is that there are indy darlings headlining. Not just that, they are - for the most part - putting on some really good matches. I have actually been really taken by some (stress SOME) of the matches on WWE tv lately. They have a LOT of talent on that roster and that does provide for some big payoffs for indy loving, keyboard warrior fans.

I agree the governing axioms of the product (fear of letting small guys headline, incoherent writing, etc) make it an overall bad product by comparison to some other time periods/companies from the past. But there is a novelty to seeing the indy darlings come up in a way that we have never really been able to before. The emergence of the modern indy promotion, the development of the DVD market, and rise of social media all make this era of wrestling appealing in a way that was never really possible before. So yeah, there is a lot of shit about the modern program. I hate that it is written for children. However, there is also a ton of talent on that roster right now and I am enjoying the WWE like I haven't in quite sometime.

Note: I almost always miss Raw and watch the hulu edition in the morning and they trim a lot of fat for that so I am speaking only to a particular version of the product.

Honestly, stop bitching about modern wrestling. It's not 2007 and you don't sound cool bashing the WWE now, just stupid.

2kNikk wrote:Honestly, stop bitching about modern wrestling. It's not 2007 and you don't sound cool bashing the WWE now, just stupid.

Maybe I'm just different than most people here.  I never hopped on the indy wrestling bandwagon in the formative years of the 21st century, and I don't think CM Punk is the greatest wrestler in the business today.

I see guys like Daniel Bryan, CM Punk, Ambrose, and Seth Rollins that have a lot of talent, but for one reason or another just haven't resonated with the wrestling audience quite in the way guys like Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, Steve Austin, and the Rock once did or even guys more comparable like Malenko, Jericho, Benoit, and Eddie Guerrero.

I like them, but I'm not compelled to watch the product just because they're on TV.  They put on great matches, don't get me wrong, but I can watch those great matches along with tons of others randomly on youtube.  I don't have to follow the WWE product to enjoy a Daniel Bryan match.  No one ever said these guys couldn't wrestle.  The problem is they don't compell me to watch the product as a whole.  A lot of this is because they're just not on the same talent level as the aforementioned main event and midcard legends of the past.  Even moreso I think is due to the differences in the way WWE is booked these days compared to the past.

The product is so homogenized and dumbed down.  There's no serious competition for WWE, and through merchandise sales and other ventures, they've become this huge corporate machine that spits out prepackaged talent out of a blender.  Storylines and promos are all scripted by hollywood writers and there's no sense of innovation or differentiation as a result.  WWE is being booked as if it were appealing to an audience who had never watched a wrestling program before, while those of us who have been watching for years can only groan whenever 41 year-old Big Show comes out of the curtain as a surprise challenge to Brock Lesnar.

For the wrestling fan, WWE rarely does anything surprising.  It's a neutered form of the same concepts that they've been working off of for the better part of 17 years and rather than attempt to evolve in an appeal to the older, smarter wrestling fan much as they morphed from the kid-friendly WWF in the early 90s to the more in-your-face WWF of the late 90s to the first two or three years of the 2000s, their in-ring product has almost alienated that fan base entirely.  The product feels massively stale and a company that was once so famous for having its fingertips on the heart of American culture has no idea how to produce a relevant product and has in effect retreated within itself to become an almost self parody, reminding us every week that they are the "longest running weekly episodic television show in TV history" and that their show caused 2419 tweets about Randy Orton.  It's almost as if through these moronic revelations week in and week out, that they're almost trying to convince us or more likely themselves that they're still relevant.

Don't get me wrong,  WWE does a lot of good for the long-time wrestling fan through their extensive back-catalog of wrestling content often released on-demand or on DVD as well as the upcoming WWE Network in addition to things almost entirely geared towards the wrestling fan such as the Hall of Fame ceremony which is a three hour awards show where you do nothing but listen to old guys tell stories all night long.

It's just that in terms of their in-ring product, they've essentially given up on catering to the old wrestling fan demographic, having lost them to MMA or other sporting events like the NBA or NFL.  They're targeting their efforts towards children and their gimmicks, storylines, and brain-dead commentary reflect this entirely, and let me emphasize that all the talent in the world won't fix the larger issues in that the company, while immensely successful, just doesn't have guys like me in mind when they book their shows.

This sounds like a stretch to me. I think there is a lot to appeal to the old wrestling demographic. Comparing the talent today to the talent of the mid to late 90s and saying they don't resonate the same is a terribly stacked comparison. As you yourself stated, the product is catered to a different age group, therefor it is framed and mediated in an entirely different way. In short, CM Punk, Bryan Danielson, and the like don't have the same freedoms, the same writing, the some competitive wrestling environment to appeal to old school wrestling fans. You are conflating your fairly spot on argument about the product and its audience to a shoddy side argument about the overall appeal of indy wrestlers derived from your own feelings. I am not sure you are even attempting to make the argument, but you are more or less contending that indy wrestlers don't appeal to old school wrestling fans (using yourself as a case study), ignoring the myriad other factors that contribute to the product.

Though I recognize that you are not saying anything about their talent, you are making implicit declarations about their general appeal that I think are pretty unfair (or at least unfounded). The comparison's aren't exactly apples to oranges, but they are least like apples to apple pie, the reception of the product has just changed too much.

To another point, I completely get the idea that you don't need to watch the E to enjoy a great Danielson match. I have a nice little dvd collection. If I wanted I could never turn on live wrestling again and probably not watch the same match twice in a year or two. I'm set. But I firmly believe that one of the cool things about wrestling fandom is the investment that many of us have in the wrestling culture. Personally, I try to focus that energy into supporting the people or companies that have provided such entertainment. That is why i watch the WWE now. For what my small, inaudible voice is worth in the larger system of ratings and gates, I want to support a product that features wrestlers I like, even if my effect is negligible at best. Yes, this is a romanticized notion, but it gives me a reason to engage the product and not just cock out now that indy wrestlers have made it big.

CapitalTTruth wrote:This sounds like a stretch to me.  I think there is a lot to appeal to the old wrestling demographic.  Comparing the talent today to the talent of the mid to late 90s and saying they don't resonate the same is a terribly stacked comparison. As you yourself stated, the product is catered to a different age group, therefor it is framed and mediated in an entirely different way. In short, CM Punk, Bryan Danielson, and the like don't have the same freedoms, the same writing, the some competitive wrestling environment to appeal to old school wrestling fans. You are conflating your fairly spot on argument about the product and its audience to a shoddy side argument about the overall appeal of indy wrestlers derived from your own feelings. I am not sure you are even attempting to make the argument, but you are more or less contending that indy wrestlers don't appeal to old school wrestling fans (using yourself as a case study), ignoring the myriad other factors that contribute to the product.

Though I recognize that you are not saying anything about their talent, you are making implicit declarations about their general appeal that I think are pretty unfair (or at least unfounded). The comparison's aren't exactly apples to oranges, but they are least like apples to apple pie, the reception of the product has just changed too much.  

To another point, I completely get the idea that you don't need to watch the E to enjoy a great Danielson match. I have a nice little dvd collection. If I wanted I could never turn on live wrestling again and probably not watch the same match twice in a year or two.  I'm set. But I firmly believe that one of the cool things about wrestling fandom is the investment that many of us have in the wrestling culture.  Personally, I try to focus that energy into supporting the people or companies that have provided such entertainment. That is why i watch the WWE now.  For what my small, inaudible voice is worth in the larger system of ratings and gates, I want to support a product that features wrestlers I like, even if my effect is negligible at best. Yes, this is a romanticized notion, but it gives me a reason to engage the product and not just cock out now that indy wrestlers have made it big.

 

What I'm saying is that while WWE is doing a good job of pushing young talent, for a variety of reasons, even with their doing so, I'm not compelled to watch the product.

A lot of that has to do with the fact that I'm not as much of a fan of these guys as a lot of people here, but the post had more to do with the fact that wrestlers are booked differently today than they were years ago and I feel that has come at a detriment to their appeal.  My second point is that this is a symptom of what I believe is a larger issue.

Now having said all that, The fact that I say WWE's product does little to appeal to actual wrestling fans doesn't have a whole lot to do with the in-ring talent.  Rather that's a tremendous reason to watch WWE.  Like I said, I believe the reason most of us still give WWE a chance on Monday nights is so we can see talent like CM Punk main eventing Raw.  The problem is that, at least to me, there's a whole lot more to wrestling than solid matches here and there, and lest we forget that sandwiched in between Bryan and Punk is a lot of filler matches and total garbage.

I don't think we are really on different pages. I think I was somewhat confused about the way you were framing your cynicism regarding the current product around the indy darlings and how they never mattered as much to you before your most recent post, that and the distinguishing characteristics of old wrestling fans.

Regardless, it doesn't really matter. We can agree that there are tons of problems with the current product. Most of your criticisms seem spot on to me. To me this speaks to my original point in the thread, that maybe it wouldn't be so bad if TNA went under and space was given for a new product to eventually emerge. I don't think TNA is ever going to make TNA sweat, ever going to really push them to compete like they used to. But who knows... maybe someone else could.