# What is AEW doing right that TNA did wrong?



## fulcizombie (Jul 17, 2011)

First of all I am quite an old member here but haven’t posted for sometime because I found the wwe extremely boring. Anyway I don’t know if this has been discussed before, it probably has, but I have to ask a question for members that have been following professional wrestling in the last few decades. TNA had it all at one time. Huge stars, the biggest names it could have, a very rich family as an owner , decent tv support yet it was always going nowhere. The weekly shows were from a studio and looked pathetic and it could never draw decent crowds (over 10.000) even for the few very big PPVs it had (not the smaller ones being performed in the studio). Vince never saw them as a true rival, never mentioned them and gladly left some of WWE big stars sign to TNA.

Now here comes a new company, AEW and fills up arenas before airing a single show on weekly tv. Its first show is televised from a packed 14.000 arena. Its roster, for me, pales in comparison to TNA’s best years yet the excitement and the feeling that a true rival for the WWE is here is apparent. Vince does fear AWE, he won’t let lose from his contract even b’ rate wrestlers and he is willing to pay them just to sit and do nothing.

For people that know history and are experts, I am not from the U.S, what exactly did TNA do wrong that AWE is doing right thus far ? Is it WWE fatigue (TNA appeared when WWE was at its highest in popularity and its big problems hadn’t begun yet). No mention of «Hogan did this, Vince Russo did that», I mean from the beginning of each company (AEW, TNA).

If the forum is wrong move the thread and I apologize in advance.


----------



## michael_3165 (Apr 16, 2016)

*Re: What is AEW doing right that TNA did wrong ?*

Its all about the money. They have a billionaire who has contacts and can pump huge money into promoting it. When you have ties with massive TV companies you can get big deals, push the product hard etc. AEW also have it lucky that social media is bigger now than when TNA first became a 'thing'. Twitter, FB, Instagram etc are all platforms that AEW are utilising expertly. TNA didn't have that platform for years and years, by which time the whole company was established and not in a great way. Plus Dixie Carter was fuckin mental with her appointments in big senior positions, it sounds like Khan has great minds (Sullivan, Anderson et al) leading the charge backstage.


----------



## ElTerrible (Feb 8, 2004)

*Re: What is AEW doing right that TNA did wrong ?*

TNA did very little wrong at the beginning. WWE still had Cena and just not sufficiently destroyed/eroded their brand loyalty yet. 

TNA had the superior product for many years. 

Styles, Joe, Daniels, Abyss, Christian, Angle, Sting, Beer Money, MCMG, LAX, Gail Kim, Awesome Kong, Jay Lethal, Frankie Kazarian. Great stuff.

They had the right mix for a while, until Bischoff, Hogan, Flair, Booker T, Nash, Foley, Steiner, Hardy and all these washed-up WWE has beens got the upper hand. 

Also going away from the six sided ring basically ripped their heart out. TNA didn´t even understand that the ring was the symbol of their wrestling "rebellion".


----------



## Death Rider (May 18, 2011)

Not hiring vince Russo and hulk Hogan.

Not putting themselves on monday night when they are still growing.


----------



## Bosnian21 (May 27, 2019)

*Re: What is AEW doing right that TNA did wrong ?*

A few factors. 

• Social media has helped build huge momentum for AEW before they even had one PPV show, let alone before they began weekly television. 

• WWE’s product is at a huge low point. Interest in WWE hasn’t been this low for a long time, maybe early to mid 90s? (I wasn’t born then so maybe someone else could speak on that better than me). This is fairly self-explanatory. Poor booking, scripted promos, a staleness in the product that wasn’t there several years ago when TNA actually had a decent product on TV. 

• AEW has a better TV deal already than TNA ever had. This brings a certain legitimacy to the program, being on TNT. 

• The Elite have a built in die-hard fanbase that will stick with them. AEW already had a built in fanbase because the company was built with the help of The Elite, who have been extremely over the last few years.


----------



## yeahright2 (Feb 11, 2011)

*Re: What is AEW doing right that TNA did wrong ?*

Way too early to say what AEW are doing right compared to TNA. At one point it actually looked like TNA could be a serious contender to WWE, But then Dixie Carter arrived. Then the Hogan/Bishoff fiasco, followed by Corgan, JJ´s scam with GFW.. And the rest is history, as they say..


----------



## Geeee (Aug 9, 2010)

It might seem small but TNA is a really embarrassing name for a promotion, so they put themselves at a disadvantage right off the bat.

Also, AEW has the advantage of a few more years of awful WWE programming turning even more viewers away.


----------



## roadkill_ (Jan 28, 2010)

*Re: What is AEW doing right that TNA did wrong ?*

TNA went on the road without advertising IIRC. Either through stupidity or lack of funds. TNA also insisted on gimmicking the ring with two extra turnbuckles, including faking a 'poll' where the 'fans' decided to bring it back. The six sided ring was a farce and a joke.


----------



## Scissor Me Daddy-O!! (Apr 13, 2011)

TNA copied WWE. 

AEW set out to be a different product. It was also born out of spite from former or overlooked WWE wrestlers, rather than a group of people just in it for the money. Wrath is much more motivational than money.


----------



## Lesnar Turtle (Dec 6, 2011)

TNA didnt do much wrong at all until they brought in Hogan imo. It was a very solid show and often better than the WWE.

It is a curious thing though that they got pretty good ratings but it never translated into ticket sales. Their attendance was always kinda weak, I think their biggest crowd ever was around half of what Dynamite just did.


----------



## Cydewonder (Oct 4, 2013)

They have better ppl running it? :shrug

Id rather watch a cool hip wresting product run by Cody & the Young bucks > something ran by Jeff Jarrett, Dixie Carter etc.

same applies to Vince & WWE


----------



## fulcizombie (Jul 17, 2011)

Thanks for the replies. Some people are insisting about the Hogan e.t.c period but TNA could never establish themselves as a serious wrestling company even at their peak way before the Hogan era. This isn’t about the quality of the product, I know that TNA was great at one point but even then they did their weeklies from a studio, their biggest PPV buyrate was 50.000 people (I think an AWE ppv did 100k) , during the Angle-Samoa Joe feud when Angle went to TNA and they always felt so small, despite all the talent they had. AWE feels gigantic in comparison being led by a wwe mid carter (Cody) and a WWE veteran way past his prime (Jericho) who is a genius though. I am starting to believe that the decline of the wwe is the biggest reason.


----------



## Raye (Jul 23, 2018)

*Re: What is AEW doing right that TNA did wrong ?*



ElTerrible said:


> TNA did very little wrong at the beginning. WWE still had Cena and just not sufficiently destroyed/eroded their brand loyalty yet.
> 
> TNA had the superior product for many years.
> 
> ...


I would not categorize Steiner or Hardy with those guys at all. Heck, even categorizing Nash there is very questionable of you. Steiner was there way before Hogan and Bischoff, and he contributed a lot to the product, and had one of the most legendary promos in wrestling history that'll be remembered for years and years to come. Jeff came near the peak of his popularity, at a time where he was fresh off being the most over guy in WWE, out-selling Cena in mech, and blowing the roof off of places. I would not blame TNA for acquiring Jeff at all, the only downfall was the one instance where he appeared drugged out of his mind at a PPV, other than that he was fine. Nash was there in the early days of TNA and helped mentor the younger guys, didn't occupy the spotlight, nor was he in the main event scene.

All the wrestlers hated competing in the six-sided ring. We've heard multiple complaints about it. A lot of fans also gave them backlash for it. Was it a cool concept originally? Yeah, most definitely. Was it time to move on to a four-sided ring though? Yep.

TNA had a great product and were doing a good job at slowly growing their fan base year by year until they brought in Hogan and Bischoff. It was all downhill from there. It also didn't help how much of a lack of understanding for the business Dixie had, and that definitely contributed to the products failure.


----------



## llj (Feb 22, 2018)

They just started.


----------



## shandcraig (Mar 23, 2008)

Tna never had a proper structure behind it. They never ever had any proper form of production. And im not saying fancy set but to properly have one so everything's set. Even road shows the fan rails always looked like a mess.

Behind the scenes management never had a team plan.

Dixie always had her own vision idea going agaisnt her crestive team.money was neevr managed well. She has no clie about business,about wrestling and about money management. 


To many things not in place that makes a wrestling promotion work.

I could go on and on. I still gave them a chance for years lol.

Impact is being ran well now

I still loved many things they didbut itsclear why it failed. 


Hopefully current impact rises!


----------



## DOTL (Jan 3, 2012)

It's self-awareness for one thing.


----------



## EMGESP (Apr 3, 2016)

They have a backer that actually is knowledgable about the business.


----------



## cease2exist (Apr 16, 2014)

*Re: What is AEW doing right that TNA did wrong ?*



ElTerrible said:


> TNA did very little wrong at the beginning. WWE still had Cena and just not sufficiently destroyed/eroded their brand loyalty yet.
> 
> TNA had the superior product for many years.
> 
> ...


Yeah I think this is pretty accurate, they got away from what was working for them and instead tried to bring in big names from WCW/WWE to try to compete with WWE and their product just wasn't very good. It actually seems to be ran a lot better now even though they don't have the big names they used to (well they do have a few like RVD lol)


----------



## oleanderson89 (Feb 13, 2015)

Terrible ownership. Jeff Jarrett deserves a lot of credit but at the same time, he was a very poor marketer. Hogan should have been used as a mascot and never gto that amount of TV time or been in charge of creative. Miscalculating the worth of Bischoff and Hogan as creative. Dixie Carter had very little acumen to run a wrestling company let alone any business.


----------



## Natecore (Sep 16, 2013)

The young bucks are a draw


----------



## Stellar (May 30, 2016)

I feel like the comparison right now should be only when TNA was partnered with the NWA. The beginnings of TNA. Not years down the road when Dixie Carter had majority control and brought in Hogan. That was a lot later.

The early days of TNA were fine. AEW just has the money to start out much bigger and opportunity for a much better TV deal than NWA-TNA did.


----------



## Dickhead1990 (Aug 31, 2016)

The problem with TNA (prior to Hogan anyway) was that it all happened too soon and had too much of a good thing. Bringing in established stars like Raven, Angle and Christian was great and did a lot to help the company. The problem was when the roster became over-saturated with Ex-WWE stars, which were inevitably put over the home grown talent. With that said, they had found some genuinely great new talent and had built a hardcore fanbase of its own for a while. 

I personally think that if TNA had come around in the last couple of years, with a larger presence of social media, they would have done even better. Yes, TNA did grow thanks to forum promotion, though the options available now are numerous. Plus, WWE is even weaker now than it was then, despite the product being better.

Then Hogan came along... No need to explain that.

For AEW, it's too soon to say, but it's feeling rather fresh and organic. The fanbase is strongly indie favouring, with ROH and NJPW being big hits. Plus The Elite's diehard following has certainly helped that.


----------



## 304418 (Jul 2, 2014)

1. It’s on TNT, not Spike. Although Spike had reach, they haven’t been a positive for wrestling.

ECW – canceled for WWF and goes bankrupt.

WWF – they moved to that network because they would allow for more edgier content than what the USA Network would, but the ratings decline started there and it hasn’t recovered, even after the return to the more PG USA.

TNA – never broke beyond a 1.5 rating despite the fact that it was the major alternative to WWE, and followed the WCW playbook by relying on a number of ex-WWE stars, going head to head with WWE on Monday nights, and being backed by a billionaire in Panda Energy.

Meanwhile, TNT is associated with big league wrestling in WCW. Even in its worst years and dying days, WCW was a bigger deal than TNA.

2. It’s a timing issue – the world is in a much different place technologically, socially and culturally, partially because of social media. Wrestling in general is in a different place as well. Indy wrestling, Japanese wrestling, women’s wrestling, lucha wrestling wasn’t much of a big deal even a decade ago. Plus, fans have had to endure WWE’s not-so-great booking for basically forever, as well as their misuse of talent, poaching of talents from other promotions, and their efforts to prevent any sort of competition from rising up. Fans are also witnessing WWE’s decline, and have the experience to know what works in wrestling now and what doesn’t work in wrestling anymore. 

None of the above was the case for TNA.

3. Long term planning: AEW is a name you can see lasting into the future, like most wrestling promotions, and you won’t be embarrassed by mentioning its name. TNA was named TNA because it was a play on tits & ass, and was foolishly though that crash tv and Attitude era wrestling would last forever. Except that crash tv and Attitude era wrestling is out and peak tv and workrate wrestling is in.

There’s another point that does matter, although it doesn’t touch upon AEW too much. And that is whether it is possible that the homegrown TNA stars were not draws? And my answer to that is IDK. AJ Styles wasn’t a great draw for NJPW initially, but he’s also the guy who helped put NJPW on the match internationally. Even though he hasn’t been used on the main roster much, Bobby Roode’s entrance is one of the few were fans will have any reaction in the WWE. And despite not capturing the WWE title, Samoa Joe is still seen as a credible and believable wrestler and garners a reaction, something that cannot be said for the majority of the roster. And all of that is possible because the management in NJPW and WWE is far more professional than TNA, and basically know what they’re doing and when they’re going to do it, even if the fanbase disagrees with them. TNA was a bush-league run promotion that declined to the point that they didn’t know where the show would be held the following week. That’s what probably held it back the most. 

Even though it has made some amateurish mistakes with production, AEW is a professionally run promotion in the vein of WWE and NJPW, and they haven’t even been around for a full year. And they’re learning from their mistakes too, rather quickly. That they have been able to beat the widely considered best brand in WWE in NXT on their first night with a majority of names not heard of in the mainstream is very impressive.


----------



## Error_404 (Apr 12, 2016)

TNA was going alright till 2007-08 , then they started putting old fossils in main events and giving them the world title regularly . It got worst when Hogan and Bischoff arrived


----------



## imthegame19 (Oct 12, 2008)

Easy terrible ownership, terrible creative and tried to be WWE light. Every time a guy came from WWE they were 2nd rate verison of themselves in TNA. Instead of bringing ex WWE guys in and giving them something fresh. 


Look at Shawn Spears, if he went to TNA. He would have been perfect 10 babyface still. What does AEW do they make him jerk heel. Now look at Jake Hager. AEW gonna book him as bad ass guy who fights in MMA. They aren't going to have him do same old Jack Swagger gimmicks. Even Dustin Rhodes AEW character isn't like versions of over the top Goldust character we saw in WCW and TNA. Instead we got somewhat of a Goldust look but he's more just Dustin Rhodes then a character.


----------



## Blisstory (Apr 22, 2019)

Honestly, and people will get butt hurt over this, but TNA was essentially built from scratch. Ring of Honor was small time so nobody really had heard of guys like AJ Styles, Samoa Joe, Christopher Daniels, Kaz, etc etc. The only "name" TNA had for years was Jeff Jarrett and he broke a 1000 guitars and never drew a time. (Sting may have been there, I cant remember that far back, Im too old)

That being said AEW is filled with guys that made names for themselves in the 2 biggest wrestling companies in the world (WWE & NJPW). Other then MJF, they really dont have anyone (currently) that will be looked at as "homegrown" Cody, Bucks, Omega, Jericho, Mox....all were names somewhere else before AEW. Already having large fan bases of wrestlers to bring into a company helps a TON.


----------



## DGenerationMC (Jan 30, 2011)

Error_404 said:


> TNA was going alright till 2007-08 , then they started putting old fossils in main events and giving them the world title regularly . It got worst when Hogan and Bischoff arrived


It blows my mind when people count 07-09 as primes years for TNA, only to leap forward to 2010 when Hogan and Bischoff. In my opinion, the company was marching in place creatively for the most part from 2007-2009. 2010 felt more like a failed Hail Mary than a downturn.


----------



## Scholes18 (Sep 18, 2013)

The 2 things that killed TNA were losing the Spike deal because of Dixie being enamoured with a con man and Hulk Hogan coming in.

I like how people are dismissing Spike as some nothing network when the fact is UFC got hot on Spike TV and made that network well known through the Ultimate Fighter and Live Events. And look where they ended up after Spike. They had a good thing and messed it up for Vince Russo.

With Hogan although the product got worse the biggest problem was what they paid him. They really couldn’t afford him and as a result they lost talent because they couldn’t afford to keep them because of what they had to pay Hogan (not to mention paying his daughter more than most of the roster).


----------



## Darkest Lariat (Jun 12, 2013)

AEW has nothing to do with Jeff Jarrett, that's why.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

Everything?


----------



## oleanderson89 (Feb 13, 2015)

Good point about the name. TNA sounded absolutely awful. Nobody with an inkling of sanity would like to mention that they watch TNA.


----------



## NXT Only (Apr 3, 2016)

TNA became reactionary to what was an inferior product. 

TNA was better but because WWE was more popular they tried to follow their trends.

WWE Universe then we get the TNA Galaxy for example. 

AEW is blending so much stuff together and making a single entity that fans and wrestlers can believe in.


----------



## shandcraig (Mar 23, 2008)

Oh so you mean they are giving us a wrestling show we once knew hmmmm ?


----------



## MarkOfAllMarks (Apr 7, 2018)

To boot AEW has multi billion dollar backing and a TV deal with TNT right off the bat. AEW has more resources then TNA ever had. AEW has more financial backing then WWE.


----------



## Intimidator3 (Sep 28, 2019)

All the correct answers have been listed so I’ll just add that I really enjoyed TNA Sting, he was fun.


----------



## the_flock (Nov 23, 2016)

I don't think you can compare them both when they started out, TNA essentially had no money, no TV and no brand recognition. You're talking nearly 2 decades ago, which is a long time in terms of technology and reach. 

TNA made a few mistakes which AEW should look to try not to make -

Only made 3 main event stars between 2005 and 2010, their peak years- AJ Styles, Abyss and Somoa Joe. 3 new Main Event stars between 2010 and 2015 - Austin Aries, Bobby Roode and EC3. 

Whereas WWE are elevating twice as many stars in the same time period. 

Hiring old WWE and WCW stars and forcing them in to the main event such as Sting and Kevin Nash who were 50 years old in 2009, Mick Foley who had retired 9 years earlier, Booker T who was 44 in 2009, Scott Steiner who was 47.

Hiring Eric Bischoff, Vince Russo, Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair. 

Stopped touring and had PPVs in the same studio as their TV show. 

Lost stars at the peak of their careers such as AJ Styles, Christian, Ron Killings, Somoa Joe, Jay Lethal, Bobby Roode, Eric Young etc.

Missed out on stars who were available such as -

Big Show - 2007
Shane Helms - 2010
Batista - 2010
Shelton Benjamin - 2010
Chris Jericho - 2010
Bryan Danielson - 2010


----------



## Jupiter Jack Daniels (Jul 18, 2011)

Blisstory said:


> Honestly, and people will get butt hurt over this, but TNA was essentially built from scratch. Ring of Honor was small time so nobody really had heard of guys like AJ Styles, Samoa Joe, Christopher Daniels, Kaz, etc etc. *The only "name" TNA had for years was Jeff Jarrett and he broke a 1000 guitars and never drew a time.* (Sting may have been there, I cant remember that far back, Im too old)



That's not true.


The early years of TNA (specifically, the weekly PPV era) was loaded with "names". Their first show featured Scott Hall, Rick Steiner, Ricky Steamboat, Buff Bagwell & Ken Shamrock.


Within a year of that show, they'd brought in Sting, Dusty Rhodes, Curt Hennig, the Road Warriors, Road Dogg, X-Pac, Raven, as well as an abundance of ECW talent.


The names were definitely there. That's one thing TNA never had a shortage of.





Blisstory said:


> *That being said AEW is filled with guys that made names for themselves in the 2 biggest wrestling companies in the world (WWE & NJPW). * Other then MJF, they really dont have anyone (currently) that will be looked at as "homegrown" Cody, Bucks, Omega, Jericho, Mox....all were names somewhere else before AEW. Already having large fan bases of wrestlers to bring into a company helps a TON.




Which could also be said for TNA, especially when you look at how much those early years relied on TV talent from other companies. While that was the case for a long time, it was even more evident in those first 2-3 years, especially when Jarrett & AJ were on top, as they regularly brought in big names to work with them. Basically, everybody I listed above had a program with one of them, except for maybe Steamboat. And as the years go by, you bring in Kevin Nash, DDP, Randy Savage, Jeff Hardy, so on & so forth.


AEW definitely didn't have the advantage when it came to name talent.


----------



## the_flock (Nov 23, 2016)

Blisstory said:


> That being said AEW is filled with guys that made names for themselves in the 2 biggest wrestling companies in the world (WWE & NJPW). Other then MJF, they really dont have anyone (currently) that will be looked at as "homegrown" Cody, Bucks, Omega, Jericho, Mox....all were names somewhere else before AEW. Already having large fan bases of wrestlers to bring into a company helps a TON.


How many wrestlers in WWE's current 100+ person roster are homegrown?

How many wrestlers in WWE in 1984/5 were homegrown? Compared to how many they took from the NWA and AWA.

How many homegrown talent did WCW get rid of when Bischoff joined the company in order to replace them with 1980s WWE stars?


----------



## shandcraig (Mar 23, 2008)

Branding is everything. When you brand yourself like Apple you get a apple product.Wrestling and apple dont go hand in hand


----------



## Blisstory (Apr 22, 2019)

the_flock said:


> How many wrestlers in WWE's current 100+ person roster are homegrown?
> 
> How many wrestlers in WWE in 1984/5 were homegrown? Compared to how many they took from the NWA and AWA.
> 
> How many homegrown talent did WCW get rid of when Bischoff joined the company in order to replace them with 1980s WWE stars?


You're taking the term homegrown a little too literal which is why I put it in parenthesis. Steve Austin had been around for 7-8 years before he was in WWF but Steve Austin is seen as a "wwf made guy" Stunning Steve or Ringmaster didnt bring eyeballs to the WWF. Roddy Piper was in many territories, including Mid Atlantic but didnt bring in a cult Piper following like he had while he was in WWF. Cody Rhodes had a lot of fans in WWE that though he was being misused. Jericho has had a huge following for 20 years. Kenny Omega was putting on the best matches world wide for the past few years. These guys werent "just guys" they were already stars. 

Im not saying other companies dont use stars built somewhere else but you have to make your own stars too. Its not a knock on AEW for using stars build elsewhere. Its smart. It put more eyes on their business then what a company starting from the bottom would have.


----------



## Dixie (Sep 29, 2016)

shandcraig said:


> Tna never had a proper structure behind it. They never ever had any proper form of production. And im not saying fancy set but to properly have one so everything's set. Even road shows the fan rails always looked like a mess.
> 
> Behind the scenes management never had a team plan.
> 
> ...


First of all, how was production a mess?




TNAs production looked better than AEWs PPV production.

That's all your opinion. There's no facts to back anything up you just said. It's just you being a troll in this entire thread like you do all the time on the IMPACT board. For the most part everyone on this thread is being reasonable in their opinions. As usual you come off bitter and can't say anything positive.



oleanderson89 said:


> Good point about the name. TNA sounded absolutely awful. Nobody with an inkling of sanity would like to mention that they watch TNA.


TNA sounded fine and it's a name that wrestling fans will never forget and it was edgy. I'll always think of Total Nonstop Action. It's not T&A.


----------



## JBLGOAT (Mar 24, 2014)

I honestly have no idea. Prowrestling fans wouldn't watch a new great novel product in Lucha Underground.

TNA had star power, some great matches and angles, and couldn't sell out any arenas.

Maybe Vince Russo is wrong, prowrestling fans don't want sports entertainment. Being able to go is more important than name value.

Personally, I am a sports entertainment fan but I guess I'm just one of the 100k people that watched Lucha Underground....


----------



## shandcraig (Mar 23, 2008)

Lol you're delusional and defensive. I never said they never had good production cus once Eric's company came in they did. They just had sloppy production for years .You didn't understand my point but that's fine I probably didn't explain it well not a big deal and no I'm not bitter. I watched TNA since 2002 and I had a blast doing it regardless of its ups and downs. And you're crazy because I have said nothing negative in the impact section you're just being crazy defensive about impact when I'm in there saying nice things about it and how many excited about them being on a new Channel and what's to come. keep being fragile and delusional

Am I not allowed to like a company and still have some sort of criticism about them? What is your problem if I don't like something TNA did it doesn't mean I'm a troll and you're right it is my opinion so you need to calm down

This is why the impact section is dead because it only has a few people talking in their and their defensive and they have no ability to have any kind of criticism. Aew is not perfect WWE is not perfect impact is not perfect and is nothing wrong with having good and bad things to say


----------



## shandcraig (Mar 23, 2008)

Chill. Stop pointing shit out. I say nice things about aew nwa and impact. Get a life buddy, chasing me around


----------



## Jupiter Jack Daniels (Jul 18, 2011)

the_flock said:


> Only made 3 main event stars between 2005 and 2010, their peak years- AJ Styles, Abyss and Somoa Joe. 3 new Main Event stars between 2010 and 2015 - Austin Aries, Bobby Roode and EC3.



That said, if that was one of the issues, than is it really an issue that they "missed out" on Big Show, Shane Helms, Batista, Shelton Benjamin, Chris Jericho & Bryan Danielson?


Because it seems like that would exacerbate _this _particular issue.


Also, Bryan Danielson wasn't technically available. He had a 90 day no compete and WWE rehired him before it expired.




the_flock said:


> Whereas WWE are elevating twice as many stars in the same time period.



Cena was on top for the duration of that period; a period riddled with complaints about WWE's inability (or refusal) to make stars. If we're being honest, that period was largely responsible for the mess we have today.




the_flock said:


> Stopped touring and had PPVs in the same studio as their TV show.



Because they were losing money by touring and taking PPV's on the road.




the_flock said:


> Lost stars at the peak of their careers such as AJ Styles, Christian, Ron Killings, Somoa Joe, Jay Lethal, Bobby Roode, Eric Young etc.


Out of curiosity, what happens if you keep them that didn't happen when you had them?


----------



## Jupiter Jack Daniels (Jul 18, 2011)

Dixie said:


> TNAs production looked better than AEWs PPV production.



Even though it's literally the same guy in charge of both, right?


----------



## Dixie (Sep 29, 2016)

shandcraig said:


> Lol you're delusional and defensive. I never said they never had good production cus once Eric's company came in they did. They just had sloppy production for years .You didn't understand my point but that's fine I probably didn't explain it well not a big deal and no I'm not bitter. I watched TNA since 2002 and I had a blast doing it regardless of its ups and downs. And you're crazy because I have said nothing negative in the impact section you're just being crazy defensive about impact when I'm in there saying nice things about it and how many excited about them being on a new Channel and what's to come. keep being fragile and delusional
> 
> Am I not allowed to like a company and still have some sort of criticism about them? What is your problem if I don't like something TNA did it doesn't mean I'm a troll and you're right it is my opinion so you need to calm down
> 
> This is why the impact section is dead because it only has a few people talking in their and their defensive and they have no ability to have any kind of criticism. Aew is not perfect WWE is not perfect impact is not perfect and is nothing wrong with having good and bad things to say





shandcraig said:


> Chill. Stop pointing shit out. I say nice things about aew nwa and impact. Get a life buddy, chasing me around


"Chasing you around" are you serious? It's an online wrestling forum. I'm allowed to be on it and have an opinion. Just because I'm not on it all the time like you doesn't mean i'm "Chasing you around" that's just strange you'd even assume that and it's weird. You generally come off as very defensive if someone disagrees with you and this no different...


----------



## shandcraig (Mar 23, 2008)

Oh you have an opinion ? really I guess mine's not valid. Anyways I'm done here have an issue with me you can talk to me privately


----------



## DesoloutionRow (May 18, 2014)

Probably not hiring Russo.


----------



## headstar (May 16, 2012)

What's AEW doing that's better? The ending to Dynamite was very TNA-like. Bringing in an awful WWE reject that nobody cares about and treating him as a big deal is something TNA was known for.



JBLGOAT said:


> Maybe Vince Russo is wrong, prowrestling fans don't want sports entertainment. Being able to go is more important than name value.


*SmackDown! (sports entertainment): 3.9 million viewers.*

*Dynamite (wrestling) 1.4 million viewers.*
*
NXT (technical wank fest) 890k viewers.*

Pretty sure the general public still prefers sports entertainment.


----------



## Taroostyles (Apr 1, 2007)

Um SD is broadcast on a free over the air channel, it should be doing those kind of numbers if not more. You're comparing apples to oranges, not even close to fair. 

And that ending was not like the old TNA in any way. They presented Hager as a legit badass threat and better than WWE ever did, totally different. Plus Hager is 37, the guys TNA brought in were all mostly 50+ and were going over guys who were in their 30s.


----------



## JBLGOAT (Mar 24, 2014)

headstar said:


> What's AEW doing that's better? The ending to Dynamite was very TNA-like. Bringing in an awful WWE reject that nobody cares about and treating him as a big deal is something TNA was known for.
> 
> 
> *SmackDown! (sports entertainment): 3.9 million viewers.*
> ...


The first episode of Smackdown was hardly Russo-esque and Fox has said they want a more sports like presentation. And they're brining all these legitimate athletes in.

We'll see which direction Smackdown goes but it seems to be Wrestling....


----------



## reyfan (May 23, 2011)

*Re: What is AEW doing right that TNA did wrong ?*



michael_3165 said:


> Its all about the money. They have a billionaire who has contacts and can pump huge money into promoting it. When you have ties with massive TV companies you can get big deals, push the product hard etc. AEW also have it lucky that social media is bigger now than when TNA first became a 'thing'. Twitter, FB, Instagram etc are all platforms that AEW are utilising expertly. TNA didn't have that platform for years and years, by which time the whole company was established and not in a great way. Plus Dixie Carter was fuckin mental with her appointments in big senior positions, it sounds like Khan has great minds (Sullivan, Anderson et al) leading the charge backstage.


TNA had the Carter family backing it, not sure how rich but not as rich as the Khan's but still.


----------



## Ucok (Sep 29, 2017)

It's all about seize the opportunity, TNA fail to do it when WWE had downside moment in 2007 after Benoit incident occurred along with steroids scandal then they push their product (show) to Monday to fight against RAW while we know there's too many sports show on same day, TNA should be fight against ECWWE at Wednesday, perhaps the story will be different if they do that.


----------



## V-Trigger (Jul 6, 2016)

headstar said:


> What's AEW doing that's better? The ending to Dynamite was very TNA-like. Bringing in an awful WWE reject that nobody cares about and treating him as a big deal is something TNA was known for.
> 
> 
> *SmackDown! (sports entertainment): 3.9 million viewers.*
> ...


:LOL 
Imagine comparing regular TV to cable. 
You must be new to the wrestling world, TNA-like? That ending screamed WCW/Attitude Era my friend.


----------



## NXT Only (Apr 3, 2016)

WWE could put shit on a stick and people would buy it because it’s “WWE” that’s just how brand recognition works. 

And they should be pulling 2-3M a week on SD simply because it’s on broadcast television, people will literally channel surf and just find it. 

All most are asking for is a good show but y’all make it seem like we’re anti-WWE when we just want good storylines, matches and consistency.


----------



## the_flock (Nov 23, 2016)

Blisstory said:


> You're taking the term homegrown a little too literal which is why I put it in parenthesis. Steve Austin had been around for 7-8 years before he was in WWF but Steve Austin is seen as a "wwf made guy" Stunning Steve or Ringmaster didnt bring eyeballs to the WWF. Roddy Piper was in many territories, including Mid Atlantic but didnt bring in a cult Piper following like he had while he was in WWF.


Homegrown would be either producing your own talent through wrestling schools, feeder promotions or taking Indie stars and making them nationwide. 

Piper and Austin aren't WWE homegrown products. 

Austin was TV, US and Tag Team champion in WCW and was on the verge of becoming World Champion before leaving. He was a WCW homegrown talent. 

Piper was already a household name by 1984, perhaps if WWE picked him up in the late 70s whilst he was an indie darling you would have a point, but by 84 he was already a TV and US champ in JCP, feuding with the likes of Flair, Slaughter, Wahoo McDaniel and Greg Valentine. Vince didn't pick up unknowns when he set out to dominate the industry, he took household names.


----------



## the_flock (Nov 23, 2016)

Jupiter Jack Daniels said:


> That said, if that was one of the issues, than is it really an issue that they "missed out" on Big Show, Shane Helms, Batista, Shelton Benjamin, Chris Jericho & Bryan Danielson?
> 
> Cena was on top for the duration of that period; a period riddled with complaints about WWE's inability (or refusal) to make stars. If we're being honest, that period was largely responsible for the mess we have today.
> 
> Because they were losing money by touring and taking PPV's on the road.


You need a good mix of recognised household names and homegrown talent in order to move forwards. The older guys bring in the casual viewers and then you use them to put over the next generation of stars, in theory that's how it should work.

During that period WWE did make new main event talent - Edge, Cena, Orton, Batista, Rey Mysterio, Jeff Hardy, CM Punk and Sheamus. Perhaps instead of Great Khali, Lashley should have been champ and perhaps Shelton Benjamin should have had a short run, but all in all, they did very well.

Whereas in TNA, Jeff Jarrett was champion in 2005, whilst Somoa Joe in bizarre fashion was put in the X division. Monty Brown should have also been champ in 2005/6. Eric Young in 2007. Etc. They should have been aiming at 1 per year minimum.

They may have been losing money touring, but I'd wager they were losing more money paying guys like Bischoff, Hogan, Flair, Nash, Hall, Booker T, Scott Steiner. Etc. Plus if they carried on touring they would have got their name out there more, made money off merch etc. They were doing better number than WCW in 2000/01. This had Bischoffs name written all over it as that's what he did with WCW in 94 and had plans of doing a GLOW with WCW had he bought them, by having a Vegas residency. His business brain was terrible as he didn't care because it was someone else's money.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

michael_3165 said:


> Its all about the money. They have a billionaire who has contacts and can pump huge money into promoting it. When you have ties with massive TV companies you can get big deals, push the product hard etc. AEW also have it lucky that social media is bigger now than when TNA first became a 'thing'. Twitter, FB, Instagram etc are all platforms that AEW are utilising expertly. TNA didn't have that platform for years and years, by which time the whole company was established and not in a great way. Plus Dixie Carter was fuckin mental with her appointments in big senior positions, it sounds like Khan has great minds (Sullivan, Anderson et al) leading the charge backstage.


Bingo. 

The big thing is the capital. That makes them a player out the gate. Even if we don’t know how much money is in AEW, we perceive that there is big time money at play.

And that’s really it. That perception and people being down on WWE is why there has been a swelling behind them.


----------



## poldoh (Oct 5, 2019)

TNA relied too much on ex WWE guys. Some were still in their prime, but most were not. Especially trying to push random ex WWE lower/mid carders


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

Taroostyles said:


> Um SD is broadcast on a free over the air channel, it should be doing those kind of numbers if not more. You're comparing apples to oranges, not even close to fair.
> 
> 
> 
> And that ending was not like the old TNA in any way. *They presented Hager as a legit badass threat and better than WWE ever did, totally different.* Plus Hager is 37, the guys TNA brought in were all mostly 50+ and were going over guys who were in their 30s.


This is such a weird stance. Hager has done one thing in AEW, it was cool. World champion, dominant ECW Run, Mania title match > a single beatdown

Sent from my REVVLRY+ using Tapatalk


----------



## White Glove Test (Jun 19, 2007)

for starters, it seems very apparent that AEW wants to make sure that everyone on their roster is just as important and the next guy as far as having a feud and having relevance in the company.


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

Wrong thread


----------



## OswaldMosley (Oct 6, 2019)

Death Rider said:


> Not hiring vince Russo and hulk Hogan.
> 
> Not putting themselves on monday night when they are still growing.


Except when Vince Russo was head writer their ratings grew from 500k to 1.3 million viewers by the end of 2009.

Hogan, Bischoff, and the move to Monday Nights killed them and nothing else. Personally I hated the six-sided ring though and it prevented me from ever really getting into the show at that time.


----------



## Jupiter Jack Daniels (Jul 18, 2011)

the_flock said:


> You need a good mix of recognised household names and homegrown talent in order to move forwards. The older guys bring in the casual viewers and then you use them to put over the next generation of stars, in theory that's how it should work.



There was never a point during that period where TNA didn't have both.



the_flock said:


> During that period WWE did make new main event talent - Edge, Cena, Orton, Batista, Rey Mysterio, Jeff Hardy, CM Punk and Sheamus. Perhaps instead of Great Khali, Lashley should have been champ and perhaps Shelton Benjamin should have had a short run, but all in all, they did very well.



You named eight people, two of whom (Mysterio & Sheamus) are a stretch to consider main eventers. One (Punk) regularly saw someone else main event over him. And TNA pushed Jeff Hardy as a main eventer before WWE did. Except they didn't pull the trigger because they fired him first.


Regardless, that's eight people. In a company with a brand split, which practically doubles the main event spot. And you're taking TNA to task for "only" making six. That's ridiculous.





the_flock said:


> Whereas in TNA, Jeff Jarrett was champion in 2005, whilst Somoa Joe in bizarre fashion was put in the X division. Monty Brown should have also been champ in 2005/6. Eric Young in 2007. Etc. They should have been aiming at 1 per year minimum.



Joe certainly should've got the title sooner than he did but definitely not in '05. 



Monty Brown, eh. He was over but he wasn't very good. At all. I will NEVER try to justify putting the title on him. Might as well put it on Pac-Man Jones for all that.



And Eric Young in '07? Hell no. 





the_flock said:


> They may have been losing money touring, but I'd wager they were losing more money paying guys like Bischoff, Hogan, Flair, Nash, Hall, Booker T, Scott Steiner. Etc.



I'd say that's pretty obvious, given the names involved.


But, you say they need recognized household names to move forward. So, if the ones you have (that are far more recognizable) aren't helping you make money, what's the justification in bringing in more who aren't as recognizable?


It's like there's no reasonable objective behind anything you're saying, other than do it just to say you did it.





the_flock said:


> Plus if they carried on touring they would have got their name out there more, made money off merch etc.



Look at all the touring they did from 2008 to 2012. They were running over 100 house shows a year, in addition to monthly PPV's and TV tapings every week. That's around 180 dates a year.


And how far did that level of touring get their name out there?




the_flock said:


> They were doing better number than WCW in 2000/01.



Better numbers where? Definitely not PPV buys. Definitely didn't have better TV ratings. And those attendance numbers were nowhere near consistent enough to use as a bragging point.


So, what numbers are you talking about?





the_flock said:


> *This had Bischoffs name written all over it as that's what he did with WCW in 94* and had plans of doing a GLOW with WCW had he bought them, by having a Vegas residency. His business brain was terrible as he didn't care because it was someone else's money.



What he did in WCW is irrelevant, especially if you're going to ignore the circumstances behind _this _specific situation. 



Going on the road with TV & PPV resulted in higher production costs but it didn't generate higher revenue. So, knowing that, why would you still do it?


----------



## Chip Chipperson (Jun 29, 2019)

AEW and TNA are very similar in a heap of ways.

The first TNA World Heavyweight Champion was an ageing Kurt Angle who was fresh from WWE. AEW have Chris Jericho as their first AEW Champion who is definitely ageing and is fresh from WWE. TNA had a top tier star that never had been in WWE in AJ Styles whilst AEW have Kenny Omega as their big superstar who has never been in WWE. Both companies had wrestlers as their head bookers who came from wrestling families and had clear bias towards their families and friends. Jarrett brought in Hall, X-Pac, Brian Christopher, Road Dogg etc whilst Cody has brought in Kenny, Dustin, Moxley, Page etc. Both Cody and Double J heavily featured their wives on television also. TNA signed up all the top indy talent they could before launching in 2002 whilst AEW has pretty much done the same thing.

They both achieved big TV deals (Admittedly AEW got there quicker) and both went up against WWE. I used to hang out on the TNA website forum which was up for about a year back in 2005 and it was exactly like this forum. Lots of mocking WWE, lots of talk about how TNA would be on top within 2-3 years, anyone who didn't back TNA didn't know what good wrestling was and rah rah rah. It's all very similar to when I first found out about TNA in 2005.

The original post kind of implies that AEW has done better than TNA but that's not true. AEW did a 1.4 million debut which is phenomenal but TNA at one stage had almost 3 million people watching their product and averaged 2 million for the episode. That 2 million people tuning in was up against RAW not NXT and don't quote me but I think TNA beat WWE in one quarter hour (Hogan debut for TNA) which is the only time WWE RAW has lost to anyone since 1998 and WCW. Also, AEW much like TNA relies on a lot of ex WWE talent to bring interest in and provide ratings.

Reading through the responses here I'm seeing the same old thing about Eric and Hogan ruining TNA. Want a fun fact? Eric only acted as a contributor to segments that involved Hulk Hogan up until like 2011. Hulk only acted as a contributor to his own segments also and Eric has said publicly that Hulk didn't have much interest in being involved creatively which is why Eric was there in the first place. Too many people believe the narrative that Eric and Hulk came in from January 2010, were given the world and bottled it but in reality Vince Russo was the head writer for at least a year. I'd also like to point out that Hulk Hogan signing with TNA lead to TNA getting more money and more publicity. TNA has been plugged a handful of times on the Howard Stern show for one reason and that's Hulk Hogan. Hogan was doing local radio and local television promoting TNA and TNA live events. They got at least 10-20 paid shows (Presumably for big money) because of the publicity that Hulk Hogan brings to a product. 

TNA went bad because they couldn't decide on a target audience and what their identity was. 2002-2004 they were this super indy then in 2005 they started pushing some more established names to the forefront (Nash, Hall, Hardy, DDP, Raven, Rhino, Christian etc) and kind of were viewed as WWE lite for a few years then they had a crack at being WCW for a little bit then tried to go back to knocking off WWE (To the point that Eric Young won their belt because he resembled Daniel Bryan) then they tried to become more adult with hot shot booking and gimmick matches that made no sense before becoming whatever they are today (I haven't watched in a couple years now)

One thing I will give AEW credit for thus far is that they know their audience and that is something TNA never figured out.


----------



## SMW (Feb 28, 2008)

AEW is doing everything TNA should have done in 2010. That was the year of TNAs existence it had to be a real good promotion. And like everything else they blew it.


----------



## the_flock (Nov 23, 2016)

Jupiter Jack Daniels said:


> There was never a point during that period where TNA didn't have both.
> 
> Regardless, that's eight people. In a company with a brand split, which practically doubles the main event spot. And you're taking TNA to task for "only" making six. That's ridiculous.
> 
> ...


I think there's some crossed wires here. I said its good to have a mix of homegrown talent and household names, but not when the household names are way passed it and pushed to the main event ahead of homegrown talent. 

Nash and Halls peak was a decade earlier, Scott Steiners last half decent run was 5 years earlier, but even that was a stretch, Foley had been retired for nearly a decade, Hogan and Flairs peak was over 2 decades earlier. 

We're talking about AEW here and this is what they need to avoid doing.

Angle and The Dudleyz in 06 makes sense, still got plenty of milage left, still relevant. Jeff Hardy, Christian, Rhino, Raven all utilised well, all young, but recognised stars. 

Sting in 03 made sense. Sting in 2010 doesn't. Jeff Jarrett in in 2002/3 makes sense, JJ in 2010 doesn't.

I didn't take TNA to task, you didn't read what I said. WWE created 8 new main event stars in 5 years, TNA created 3.

TNA at the height of their popularity ran 2,maybe 3 House shows per month. Then they increased 3 fold. Didn't take their TV show on the road, cancelled house shows, ran ppvs from their studio. It was a mess. Wherein if they ran all ppvs on the road and the TV taping with limited house shows, business would probably be better.


----------



## Daggdag (Jun 14, 2011)

They have an owner that considers them them to be a legit business.

To the Carters, TNA was a side project to keep their daughter happy. They were willing to pay the taxes and office salaries, but they were never willing to put any real money into the company. This is why Spike dropping them hurt TNA so much. Spike was paying their production costs. They were paying all the major salaries........After losing Spike, TNA lost their main source of revenue. This is when all he late payments and other BS happened because the Carters didn't give a fuck. 




The Khans actually believe in AEW. Tony Khan is a legit wrestling mark with 6 billion dollars. This is more money than WWE is worth as a corporation. He could buy and sell WWE twice if he wanted. He sees AEW as a legit business and is willing to put real time and money into it. He also realizes that there needs to be people who actually know the wrestling business' ins and outs making decisions, which is why he allows industry vets like Jericho, the Bucks, etc share authority with him. He runs the corporate side, and lets them book the shows. This is similar to how Ted Turner ran WCW back when it was beating WWF.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

Outside of what’s been mentioned and AEW embracing being professional and more old school wrestling? Being on TNT... don’t know how many watch TNT outside of AEW, but I have watched more lately and they have kicked promotion into overdrive. TNT is all in.


----------



## Jupiter Jack Daniels (Jul 18, 2011)

the_flock said:


> I think there's some crossed wires here. I said its good to have a mix of homegrown talent and household names, but not when the household names are way passed it and pushed to the main event ahead of homegrown talent.



That's not what you said at first, hence my response.




the_flock said:


> We're talking about AEW here and this is what they need to avoid doing.



You don't have to avoid what doesn't exist. There's no household names left. What, Brock & Goldberg? That's literally it. There's not even an abundance of even "past their prime" draws anymore. 





the_flock said:


> I didn't take TNA to task, you didn't read what I said. WWE created 8 new main event stars in 5 years, TNA created 3.



Saying it again doesn't make it any less ridiculous.


Big deal. WWE, with a brand split that allows them to make two main event stars simultaneously and segregate them, made twice as many stars as TNA in the same period.


Again, ridiculous. And yes, you're taking them to task. And I'm not even sure what the point of any of this is. Because it ain't like TNA & AEW's situations are anywhere close to similar.




the_flock said:


> TNA at the height of their popularity ran 2,maybe 3 House shows per month. Then they increased 3 fold. Didn't take their TV show on the road, cancelled house shows, ran ppvs from their studio. It was a mess. *Wherein if they ran all ppvs on the road and the TV taping with limited house shows, business would probably be better.*




Or it would probably be worse.


Who's to say?


----------



## Soul Rex (Nov 26, 2017)

poldoh said:


> TNA relied too much on ex WWE guys. Some were still in their prime, but most were not. Especially trying to push random ex WWE lower/mid carders


That's a weird point I'm reading a lot in this thread to say, consider AEW from the bottom have relied on three ex WWE guys on jericho, Moxley and Cody, not to mention recently Hager.

But yeah, I had to revive this thread, is very interesting.


----------



## Darkest Lariat (Jun 12, 2013)

Right now it's that they didn't sign Mike Bennet.

:heston


----------



## Y.2.J (Feb 3, 2015)

White Glove Test said:


> for starters, it seems very apparent that AEW wants to make sure that everyone on their roster is just as important and the next guy as far as having a feud and having relevance in the company.


This.


----------



## Metalhead1 (Jan 21, 2019)

*Re: What is AEW doing right that TNA did wrong ?*



michael_3165 said:


> Its all about the money. They have a billionaire who has contacts and can pump huge money into promoting it. When you have ties with massive TV companies you can get big deals, push the product hard etc. AEW also have it lucky that social media is bigger now than when TNA first became a 'thing'. Twitter, FB, Instagram etc are all platforms that AEW are utilising expertly. TNA didn't have that platform for years and years, by which time the whole company was established and not in a great way. Plus Dixie Carter was fuckin mental with her appointments in big senior positions, it sounds like Khan has great minds (Sullivan, Anderson et al) leading the charge backstage.


You really echo a lot of my sentiments. TNA really didn't do anything wrong in terms of wrestling. They had talented wrestlers, interesting story lines, and edgy programming. 

But it really all comes down to dollars and cents. AEW has huge financial backing and were therefore able to secure a major deal with TNT. If Impact had a deal with TNT, they obviously could've been a lot bigger. 

Also, AEW has tremendous word of mouth. It astounds me how they're able to sell out their PPV's in such record times, because IMO, their wrestler talent level isn't really that much different than what TNA had up until recently.


----------



## Greatsthegreats (Apr 15, 2015)

*Re: What is AEW doing right that TNA did wrong ?*

Going ALL IN without a set of initials was the right first move to make



ElTerrible said:


> Also going away from the six sided ring basically ripped their heart out. TNA didn´t even understand that the ring was the symbol of their wrestling "rebellion".


they should have stayed with 4 sides in the first place



llj said:


> They just started.


and yet they achieved in months what TNA couldn't in years



oleanderson89 said:


> Terrible ownership. Jeff Jarrett deserves a lot of credit but at the same time, he was a very poor marketer.


and he thought that going on a Triple H esque reign of terror would achieve anything



Verbatim17 said:


> There’s another point that does matter, although it doesn’t touch upon AEW too much. And that is whether it is possible that the homegrown TNA stars were not draws? And my answer to that is IDK. AJ Styles wasn’t a great draw for NJPW initially, but he’s also the guy who helped put NJPW on the match internationally. Even though he hasn’t been used on the main roster much, Bobby Roode’s entrance is one of the few were fans will have any reaction in the WWE. And despite not capturing the WWE title, Samoa Joe is still seen as a credible and believable wrestler and garners a reaction, something that cannot be said for the majority of the roster.


I think we can agree that when WCW lost Jericho and the radicals they lost their backbone. AJ, Joe and the like are todays equivalent 



Blisstory said:


> Honestly, and people will get butt hurt over this, but TNA was essentially built from scratch. Ring of Honor was small time so nobody really had heard of guys like AJ Styles, Samoa Joe, Christopher Daniels, Kaz, etc etc. The only "name" TNA had for years was Jeff Jarrett and he broke a 1000 guitars and never drew a time. (Sting may have been there, I cant remember that far back, Im too old)
> 
> That being said AEW is filled with guys that made names for themselves in the 2 biggest wrestling companies in the world (WWE & NJPW). Other then MJF, they really dont have anyone (currently) that will be looked at as "homegrown" Cody, Bucks, Omega, Jericho, Mox....all were names somewhere else before AEW. Already having large fan bases of wrestlers to bring into a company helps a TON.


TNA was built from scratch....despite having the NWA name attached to them for years and also had Ken shamrock, Sabu, Jerry Lynn, X Pac and Scott Hall



JBLGOAT said:


> I honestly have no idea. Prowrestling fans wouldn't watch a new great novel product in Lucha Underground.
> 
> TNA had star power, some great matches and angles, and couldn't sell out any arenas.
> 
> ...


that and your name say it all about you, ignored


OswaldMosley said:


> Except when Vince Russo was head writer their ratings grew from 500k to 1.3 million viewers by the end of 2009.


but at what cost?



Chip Chipperson said:


> The original post kind of implies that AEW has done better than TNA but that's not true.


the 10,000 plus crowds they've pulled beg to differ



Chip Chipperson said:


> I'd also like to point out that Hulk Hogan signing with TNA lead to TNA getting more money and more publicity. TNA has been plugged a handful of times on the Howard Stern show for one reason and that's Hulk Hogan. Hogan was doing local radio and local television promoting TNA and TNA live events. They got at least 10-20 paid shows (Presumably for big money) because of the publicity that Hulk Hogan brings to a product.


at what cost?


----------

