WWE and TNA: Is There Too Much Talk? A historical analysis | Launderer report


Hello wrestling friends, Tony Tuco again! I want to thank you for all the great comments on my previous posts, and I sincerely hope you find this latest post extremely entertaining.

It has been said that silence is golden and less is more. In some cases, especially when one gets pulled over by the police on the highway, this is indeed a true maxim (of course I’m not talking about any experience, I’m just speculating).

But with piledrivers (now grouped by WWE), pokes, prods, dropkicks, Finalies, Starships, FUs and the like comes a lot of talk … and, I think, necessarily. Let’s face it, even MMA and boxing show off pre-game trash talk. Without the context of violence, all you really do is watch a bunch of Speedos guys roll around and hit each other. For some, this is enough; for the most part, a little background story leads to a more enjoyable (and less scary) time.

My dad and I watch wrestling a lot, and at those times when there are two wrestlers throwing a promo or facing each other in the ring, mic in hand, he wants to change channels. He watches for action.

On the other hand, I really want to see the promo so I can get some context into the slugfest that’s about to follow… or be referred to the next PPV.

So, who is right ? Well, the answer is a little more complex than a simple yes or no. my last opinion on the matter. As always, of course, your contribution is more than welcome!


The struggle, from the early days of Kayfabe, has been about history. While being a good worker at the microphone is far more important now than in the days of Lou Thesz, since the days of Gorgeous George and the Original Nature Boy, Buddy Rogers, the ability to tell a story with words, before telling one with the leg locks were essential to the success of the fight.

Few places have this been more the case than in WWE. In WWWF days, Shane O’Mac’s trust fund was based on Heels and Faces, based on ethnic and socio-economic stereotypes. The magnificent George would infuriate the crowd with his antics and tell Ref not to touch him, lest the banality of Ref defile the august figure of George. Rogers would extol the virtues of “Win if you can, lose if you have to, but always cheat”. Words. They told a story and aroused the love or disdain that gave meaning to the violence.

Dropping a W would require adding more and more promotional work on the part of wrestlers, and history has proven the value of this ploy. WWF was created on March 1, 1985 with Wrestlemania.

What put those millions of dollars in the seats? The mastery of Hulk Hogan in technical wrestling? The lesson of multiculturalism that was the match between Nikolai Volkoff and the Iron Sheik vs The US Express? Maybe acting tips from one of the biggest in the business, Mr. T?

I would bet it was the Promos. The story. Rock and Roll attacked, first by Captain Lou attacking Cyndi Lauper, claiming that she only succeeded thanks to her presence in her video “Girls Just Wanna Have Fun” (promo). Then, after the “Brawl to End it All”, another attack from Roddy Piper who crushed an awards ceremony only to smash an award on Lou Albano’s head and put Lauper’s manager and boyfriend in a mess. firefighter’s bag, now needing a “War to Set the Score” (again, promo). Hulk Hogan takes part in the program “Hot Topics” of Richard Belzer and puts him in the hospital after having put him on hold for a fight (involuntary promotion, but promotion, nevertheless). The list goes on.

There would be no “attitude age” without promotion. Without “Suck it” without “Austin 3:16,” who would care about WWE, especially when they had an edgy and gritty alternative like WCW? Who could forget the “shot heard around the wrestling world” when DX fired an imaginary bullet at Turner’s seat to have him “Topple” on the ground.

In every incarnation, the house Winstrol built depended on promotion to spark the interest and passion of fans. And that brings us to today …

The case for more is better:

Well, why mess with a good thing? Let’s be honest, WWE has always been character-driven (that same double-edged sword is also its current weakness, but I’ll save that for another article). There were some brilliant moments in the fight (Michaels vs. Hart, Iron Man Match, Michaels vs. Undertaker I and II, Undertaker vs. Jeff Hardy in a TLC match … yes you read that right, I thought that it was a good match ….), but WWE has always, since losing a fight with a Panda and dropping a W in her initials, been about the show and the story. .. especially the show. I mean, McMahon has Release playing the piano for him at WMI.

The case for less is the best:

They cannot convince you of what you are not saying. This can be applied, in some ways, to WWE’s reliance on history.

The problem with heavy stories is that the stories last a long time. Weeks, at least. A lousy story can go on forever and cause terrible damage to the character and the company. A bad match can be more easily forgotten, especially if a wrestler’s next match is really good.

There have been some really bad matches in WWE history. There have been some lousy stories in WWE history.

Big deal you say? Alright, try this. Write down the first really bad game you can remember. Now write the first really ugly screenplay you can remember. Which took longer to do? Better question: which one made you want to never watch another PPV for as long as you’ve been living?

My last word:

It’s good to grow and evolve, but WWE should stick with what got him to dance. Keep the (preferably good) promos coming There are a lot of issues with WWE quality control, but for anyone, even halfway through, we know WWE is as much “As the World Turns” as it is. is Ring Posts and Turnbuckles. WWE is and should remain a promotion / history centric league. It’s not for everyone, but for those watching WWE programming, it’s what we’d expect … even that could definitely improve.


TNA was born from the ashes of WCW and ECW. When you think of WCW and especially ECW, you think of a more action-oriented series. It is said that TNA was founded as a place where new talent could be presented. In that sense, the fight was itself “the story”, along with the six-sided ring, Destination X and Division X. There were no big talkers to speak of. TNA was known for wrestlers doing crazy stuff, sick s% & t.

The case of loquacity:

Well … listen, I don’t believe that good promos and good wrestling are not mutually exclusive. We want to know and take care of this new generation of athletes. Good character development and a storyline that enhances, not drowns out, the flavor of the hangover can really add another dimension to a business struggling to find its own identity.

The case for becoming a mother:

Hulk Hogan was a great artist. He could pull off a few moves, but no one really looked at Hogan for his wrestling mastery. He could sell a comeback and sell the hell of a Promo. Then he tried to be an actor … and it was bad. I was the hardest, toughest Hulkamaniac, and even I, deep in my heart, knew Hogan sucks as an actor. He just didn’t have the skills. Partly because he had lousy scripts, partly because God just didn’t endow him with that skill set.

TNA looks a lot like its new creative director. The quality of the scripts is poor, artificial, downright uncomfortable. On top of that, even though TNA had a writer with a wit, there aren’t many on TNA’s list that can promote well.

The young guns of TNA excel at wrestling, but with the exception of a few WWE acquisitions, there aren’t many good mics in the house of old six-sided chaos. If you can’t do something well, sometimes it’s better not to try.

My final resolution:

Maybe TNA brought in all these old WWE retreads because they want to follow WWE down the road of history and spectacle …

Honestly, this is a big mistake. The spectacle, the spectacle, and the history of TNA are wrestling itself, from heavyweights to Division X (or it was, anyway). THIS IS WHY PEOPLE LOOK AT TNA. It’s about the contrast. I’m not saying there should be no promo or story, but please keep the promos with the ones who are really good at it. Too many TNA wrestlers get the mic that has nothing to do with that mic. And even those who are good with the mic have some lousy things to say (I mean half the time enemies seem to be asking themselves to stabilize just before they start hitting themselves). It takes away the time it takes to show the great struggle she is and should be known for.

Final analysis

Often, to get better, you have to strengthen your weaknesses. Sometimes what appears to be a weakness or a strength is just a natural manifestation of its nature. The question of whether there is too much discussion in the fight is a relative one. Wrestling without speaking is dry (and a little scary). Talking too much is dangerous, not only because it keeps the action away, but because a bad promo or a bad story can do more damage than no promo at all.

At the end of the day, WWE talks enough (even if not all that talks good), and TNA does too much (because you watch TNA wrestle without speaking, especially since most suck. ).

Hope you enjoyed this article, and as always, all comments are more than welcome.


Source link

Patrick F. Williams

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.