Does Hardcore Wrestling Benefit the Industry?

[yourcrapsweak]

(Not gonna lie, I got the idea for this topic from Kirby's Facebook. Thanks.)

Many people are against hardcore wrestling, or as some call it "garbage" wrestling. But others would argue that it can only help the business, and does not dent the infrastructure of professional wrestling. What do you think?

I think the hardcore style saved wrestling. They weren't common in the 70's and 80's, but when someone threw a chair, it was special. It was that "wow, this is getting serious" moment that didn't happen often. When the 90's came along, a whole new generation of fans appeared that wanted something different than the same old headlock for headlock wrestling. With the grunge movement sparked by bands like Marilyn Manson and Nirvana, people wanted to see the more violent and more edgy side professional wrestling had to offer. It always had the potential, but it wasn't really "wrestling." However when companies like ECW and FMW came along, that all changed. Wrestling became revitalized. It opened a new door for wrestlers and bookers alike to start anew and broaden their horizons to entertain fans. Its ideals gave birth to the Attitude Era. It made pro wrestling fun and popular again. Most fans during that time would agree that they weren't ashamed or embarrassed to admit to others that they were a wrestling fan. It sprung the business into a new territory that forever benefited it.

Now? I think it's still a good thing. With deathmatches, hardcore matches, and weird gimmick matches becoming more commonplace to keep fans interested and continue to push that envelope. We still have companies like ROH who glorify the roots of wrestling (though still well rounded), and we have companies like CZW as well to entertain the fans on the other side of the spectrum who want to see blood and guts (and in CZW's case, are still well rounded with their prosperous junior-heavyweight division).

[badnewzxl]

for me, it's simply a matter of being good; any type of wrestling that is done well can only help the business. Anyone (e.g. Jim Cornette) who thinks that ECW somehow hurt the business needs to open their eyes and stop thinking that wrestling is spose to be one dimensional. Just bc one promotion does something doesn't mean the rest of the industry has to follow suit in order to survive; that's the misconception that hurts the business. If promotions would just stick to what they do best and continue to do it well, they will remain successful; but when you attempt to replicate someone elses product (TNA, I'm talking to you. You too, late WCW) you just plain fail. WWE was smart enough to borrow a few ideas from ECW and not try to completely rip off the ECW product. They just took some key elements and made them their own, which I don't think is wrong. It's an alternative; hardcore wrestling of ECW and CZW, Comedy styles of CHIKARA and PWG, pure wrestling like ROH and NOAH, Sports Entertainment of WWE & TNA; and none of these promotions hurt the business. They are simply different from one another.

Saying that hardcore wrestling hurts pro wrestling as a whole is like claiming Punk Rock hurt Rock n Roll or Horror hurt film. There is no definitive film or music that embodies the whole genre; the same goes with wrestling. There are common themes throughout each medium but the genres within those mediums can still be different....

[yourcrapsweak]

I agree 100%.

But for the sake of argument, I think one might respond to that by saying the hardcore "genre" of wrestling hurt the "genre" of that old school, classic, pure wrestling.

[Sassafras]

My view on it is this...
I enjoy watching guys like New Jack and Sabu and Abdullah the Butcher fight on balconies, wrap themselves in barbed wire, and stab guys with eating utensils EQUALLY as much as I love watching Bryan Danielson or Dean Malenko make someone tap out after an hour of holds an reversals.
As much as I admire Jim Cornette, I find it hard to validate this argument, one way or another.
I love both styles, with a passion.
Wrestling is my life. Not JUST ''pure'' wrestling and not ONLY ''hardcore'' wrestling.

[badnewzxl]

I agree 100%.

But for the sake of argument, I think one might respond to that by saying the hardcore "genre" of wrestling hurt the "genre" of that old school, classic, pure wrestling.

to that I'd ask "How?" by being different? The two genres can exist simultaneously; it doesn't have to be one or the other. I mean, there are documentaries AND scripted films; does documentaries hurt film bc there requires no acting or writing? No. It's just a different genre of film. Hardcore wrestling is just a genre of pro wrestling. ROH's style is very different from old school wrestling too, nobody talks about how THAT hurts the business. Hell, WWE doesn't even like to refer to it's product as wrestling, yet everyone accepts it as the top wrestling promotion in the world. What WWE has done hurts wrestling WAAAY more than ECW, CZW, or any hardcore promotion; they've de-emphasized WRESTLING more than anyone else EVER.

And I'm gonna come back to Cornette on this one bc he's the number one guy who comes out and talks down about hardcore wrestling (he and Lawler): I feel the same way about Southern style wrestling as they do about hardcore wrestling, except that I don't feel like it hurts the business at all. In fact, I think places like Smokey Mountain and USWA should have counted their blessings a long time ago bc that brand and the hardcore brand are mortal enemies; Cornette's brand of wrestling NEEDS hardcore wrestling or NO ONE will give a shit about it anymore. Just look at how many fueds have involved those Southern style guys against the extreme style guys: Homicide v. Pearce & Cornette (ROH), Dreamer v. WWE (ECW; which featured both Lawler and Cornette), Steve Corino & Co. v. ECW. The two go together often times WAAAY better than they exist on their own; esp when you're talking about the Southern style. In fact, if not for all the "furniture" ECW wouldn't have been very much different from SMW (they ended up with a lot of the same talent: Candido, Balls, Foley, Gangsters, Smothers, etc); all ECW did was add the furniture (the very thing Cornette criticizes) and THAT helped make ECW the single most beloved and endeared wrestling promotion in the US. Maybe it hurt Cornette's business bc ppl didn't have to watch a forty minute match between two pot-bellied guys strutting around just punching and piledriving each other over and over again; instead they could watch two beer-bellied maniacs hit each other with road signs and piledrive each other through tables for ten to fifteen minutes. If the fans like it, I don't see how it could hurt the biz; and ppl LOVE ECW....

[badnewzxl]

My view on it is this...
I enjoy watching guys like New Jack and Sabu and Abdullah the Butcher fight on balconies, wrap themselves in barbed wire, and stab guys with eating utensils EQUALLY as much as I love watching Bryan Danielson or Dean Malenko make someone tap out after an hour of holds an reversals.
As much as I admire Jim Cornette, I find it hard to validate this argument, one way or another.
I love both styles, with a passion.
Wrestling is my life. Not JUST ''pure'' wrestling and not ONLY ''hardcore'' wrestling.

yeah, man; right there with you. And at the same time, I like ECW but I'm not a fan of XPW. I think WWE is great a lot of the time, but when TNA tries to do the sports ent thing it just doesn't work out. It's not about WHAT you do; it's how WELL YOU DO WHAT YOU DO. I love twenty to forty minute matches, but I'd rather watch the Sandman stagger around and fall through some tables than watch Jerry Lawler punch bill Dundee for Forty five minutes. Sometimes, I'd rather watch Bryan Danielson wrestle for sixty than see Abyss fall through some barbed wire. And still sometimes I wanna hear the Rock talk trash instead of watch Beer Money wrestle a good tag match. All these elements don't have to be in one place; it wouldn't make much sense. However, It's great that they are all available so that I can watch wrestling so long as I'm in the mood to watch wrestling. Just like if I wanna watch a movie; if they did away with Horror films bc someone decided it hurts the film industry, what the hell would I be able to watch on Halloween? You know what I'm saying?

[Big Red Machine]

I fall more in line with Jim Cornette's point of view, but I am a bit more generous to it than he is.

Hardcore wrestling is good IF IT MEANS SOMETHING. If it grows organically form the story, it is fine. Now, that story can be very defined very loosely. Something like "there is a title that can only be defended in hardcore matches" is a perfectly fine reason to have a hardcore match. To have a hardcore match just for the sake of having a hardcore match is stupid.

Hardcore wrestling (and any other gimmick match involving weapons or a non-standard winning stipulation) should be SPECIAL. If you have one every week, it isn't special (the Hardcore title was fine, but it shouldn't have been defended as often).

It is not just the match itself that must mean something, but the spots in the match, too. Don't kick out of 719 chairshots. If you want to audience to react to a spot as being huge, you have to sell it as being such, and structure the match accordingly. The famous Zandig-Mondo spot when Zandig gave Mondo a Mother F'N Bomb off of a roof at least fifty feet in the air, through about four tables with a bunch of light tubes on them was only the SECOND FALL in a 3 fall match. How STUPID is that? That means that the third fall will have to be an EVEN BIGGER SPOT (it wasn't). Hell... how does ANYTHING matter after THAT?

However, not ALL hardcore wrestling suffers from this.

THe thing that I think is A LOT worse than Hardcore Wrestling is "deathmatch" or "Ultraviolent" wrestling. It is a bunch of guys ACTUALLY HURTING EACH OTHER... SEVERELY! The random, nonsensical use of weapons such as light tubes, barbed wire, razor blades, needles, fire, weed whackers, thumbtacks, panes of glass, electricity, explosions, and anything else these people can get their hands on is just...disturbing at times. What is the point to it? Do be "hardcore" or "ultraviolent"? Is it an end in and of itself? I hope not.

If it takes a 96 light tubes, five powerbombs through tables, a dive from a balcony, the other guy's finisher through a flaming table wrapped in electrified poison, dipped, barbed wire and a shotgun blast to put you down, how the hell is the guy going on next supposed to look good while getting pinned after Tiger Bomb?

When done with good psychology and stemming organically from a well-built angle (and in most cases, AS THE BLOWOFF- because what the hell else can you do to each other?) a deathmatch is okay... but that is rarely the way it is done. For the most part, deathmatches are just spotfests for the vicariously sadistic, that make it harder for every other wrestler to get over.

[yourcrapsweak]

I fall more in line with Jim Cornette's point of view, but I am a bit more generous to it than he is.

Hardcore wrestling is good IF IT MEANS SOMETHING. If it grows organically form the story, it is fine. Now, that story can be very defined very loosely. Something like "there is a title that can only be defended in hardcore matches" is a perfectly fine reason to have a hardcore match. To have a hardcore match just for the sake of having a hardcore match is stupid.

Hardcore wrestling (and any other gimmick match involving weapons or a non-standard winning stipulation) should be SPECIAL. If you have one every week, it isn't special (the Hardcore title was fine, but it shouldn't have been defended as often).

It is not just the match itself that must mean something, but the spots in the match, too. Don't kick out of 719 chairshots. If you want to audience to react to a spot as being huge, you have to sell it as being such, and structure the match accordingly. The famous Zandig-Mondo spot when Zandig gave Mondo a Mother F'N Bomb off of a roof at least fifty feet in the air, through about four tables with a bunch of light tubes on them was only the SECOND FALL in a 3 fall match. How STUPID is that? That means that the third fall will have to be an EVEN BIGGER SPOT (it wasn't). Hell... how does ANYTHING matter after THAT?

However, not ALL hardcore wrestling suffers from this.

THe thing that I think is A LOT worse than Hardcore Wrestling is "deathmatch" or "Ultraviolent" wrestling. It is a bunch of guys ACTUALLY HURTING EACH OTHER... SEVERELY! The random, nonsensical use of weapons such as light tubes, barbed wire, razor blades, needles, fire, weed whackers, thumbtacks, panes of glass, electricity, explosions, and anything else these people can get their hands on is just...disturbing at times. What is the point to it? Do be "hardcore" or "ultraviolent"? Is it an end in and of itself? I hope not.

If it takes a 96 light tubes, five powerbombs through tables, a dive from a balcony, the other guy's finisher through a flaming table wrapped in electrified poison, dipped, barbed wire and a shotgun blast to put you down, how the hell is the guy going on next supposed to look good while getting pinned after Tiger Bomb?

When done with good psychology and stemming organically from a well-built angle (and in most cases, AS THE BLOWOFF- because what the hell else can you do to each other?) a deathmatch is okay... but that is rarely the way it is done. For the most part, deathmatches are just spotfests for the vicariously sadistic, that make it harder for every other wrestler to get over.

I think you're forgetting one important thing - entertainment. It's entertaining to some fans. That's why they have the deathmatches, for the fans who love it. Wrestling doesn't always have to have to have some epic angle revolving around every match and stipulation. If the fans love deathmatches, a good booker will give it to them.

From your perspective, wrestling is more of a science than it is emotions and passion. It's a combination, but it doesn't have to be meticulous or calculated to the point.

[badnewzxl]

TOTALLY agree, YCW; and I see where you're coming from too, BRM. I think that Hardcore matches that take place in WCW, WWE, TNA, and other promotions SHOULD have build to them an not just be thrown together; but in promotions like ECW, CZW, FMW, and others, it makes since bc IT'S THEIR STYLE. In THOSE promotions, I think NON DEATHMATCHES should be special; like if two hardcore guys wanna settle who's the toughest, they should do it WITHOUT weapons and see who wins, just the same as two guys in WWE getting to the point in their feud where tables or chairs are used. ROH does an excellent job of this.

[Big Red Machine]

ROH's style is very different from old school wrestling too, nobody talks about how THAT hurts the business.

They do. People like Metzler and the people who agree with him really don't like the ROH style. People like that will give ROH credit for Joe vs. Punk and Kobashi vs. Joe, dislike matches like Davey vs. Tyler or Dragon vs. KENTA, and they will especially hate matches which are more past-paced, like a lot of the X-Division matches.

Hell, WWE doesn't even like to refer to it's product as wrestling, yet everyone accepts it as the top wrestling promotion in the world. What WWE has done hurts wrestling WAAAY more than ECW, CZW, or any hardcore promotion; they've de-emphasized WRESTLING more than anyone else EVER.

I have to disagree with you here. WWE may not call what they do wrestling, but they aren't fooling anyone. A bodyslam is no less a professional wrestling move than suplex. And both are definitely more of a professional wrestling move than hitting someone in the head with a light tube. Wrestling is WORKED. You and I should not be able to go out and have a wrestling match. That is what sets us apart from the wrestlers. What makes them "professionals." You and I COULD go out and put on a deathmatch. Pain tolerance would be an issue, but that is not a physical skill.

[Big Red Machine]

I fall more in line with Jim Cornette's point of view, but I am a bit more generous to it than he is.

Hardcore wrestling is good IF IT MEANS SOMETHING. If it grows organically form the story, it is fine. Now, that story can be very defined very loosely. Something like "there is a title that can only be defended in hardcore matches" is a perfectly fine reason to have a hardcore match. To have a hardcore match just for the sake of having a hardcore match is stupid.

Hardcore wrestling (and any other gimmick match involving weapons or a non-standard winning stipulation) should be SPECIAL. If you have one every week, it isn't special (the Hardcore title was fine, but it shouldn't have been defended as often).

It is not just the match itself that must mean something, but the spots in the match, too. Don't kick out of 719 chairshots. If you want to audience to react to a spot as being huge, you have to sell it as being such, and structure the match accordingly. The famous Zandig-Mondo spot when Zandig gave Mondo a Mother F'N Bomb off of a roof at least fifty feet in the air, through about four tables with a bunch of light tubes on them was only the SECOND FALL in a 3 fall match. How STUPID is that? That means that the third fall will have to be an EVEN BIGGER SPOT (it wasn't). Hell... how does ANYTHING matter after THAT?

However, not ALL hardcore wrestling suffers from this.

THe thing that I think is A LOT worse than Hardcore Wrestling is "deathmatch" or "Ultraviolent" wrestling. It is a bunch of guys ACTUALLY HURTING EACH OTHER... SEVERELY! The random, nonsensical use of weapons such as light tubes, barbed wire, razor blades, needles, fire, weed whackers, thumbtacks, panes of glass, electricity, explosions, and anything else these people can get their hands on is just...disturbing at times. What is the point to it? Do be "hardcore" or "ultraviolent"? Is it an end in and of itself? I hope not.

If it takes a 96 light tubes, five powerbombs through tables, a dive from a balcony, the other guy's finisher through a flaming table wrapped in electrified poison, dipped, barbed wire and a shotgun blast to put you down, how the hell is the guy going on next supposed to look good while getting pinned after Tiger Bomb?

When done with good psychology and stemming organically from a well-built angle (and in most cases, AS THE BLOWOFF- because what the hell else can you do to each other?) a deathmatch is okay... but that is rarely the way it is done. For the most part, deathmatches are just spotfests for the vicariously sadistic, that make it harder for every other wrestler to get over.

I think you're forgetting one important thing - entertainment. It's entertaining to some fans. That's why they have the deathmatches, for the fans who love it. Wrestling doesn't always have to have to have some epic angle revolving around every match and stipulation. If the fans love deathmatches, a good booker will give it to them.

It might be entertaining, but so is watching the divas strip. The question was "Does Hardcore Wrestling Benefit the Industry?" I think that, on the whole, it doesn't

From your perspective, wrestling is more of a science than it is emotions and passion. It's a combination, but it doesn't have to be meticulous or calculated to the point.

Not at all. Because I don't know the characters personally, therefore, I need to be given a reason to care. I need to be given a reason to HAVE the emotions. A random deathmatch doesn't do that for me, and the inherent risk involved in the use of legitimately dangerous weapons or spots off of roofs and crap, for very little reason bothers me to the point that I stop looking at it as art, and legitimately fear for the health of the competitors. Look at Mondo. At Thumbtack Jack. At JC Bailey. At New Jack. Look at Nick Gage!

Whether it is through botches, other injuries, or even a FREAK ACCIDENT like Nick Gage's, people are dynig, almost dying, or being severely injured due to this!

[badnewzxl]

ROH's style is very different from old school wrestling too, nobody talks about how THAT hurts the business.

They do. People like Metzler and the people who agree with him really don't like the ROH style. People like that will give ROH credit for Joe vs. Punk and Kobashi vs. Joe, dislike matches like Davey vs. Tyler or Dragon vs. KENTA, and they will especially hate matches which are more past-paced, like a lot of the X-Division matches.

Hell, WWE doesn't even like to refer to it's product as wrestling, yet everyone accepts it as the top wrestling promotion in the world. What WWE has done hurts wrestling WAAAY more than ECW, CZW, or any hardcore promotion; they've de-emphasized WRESTLING more than anyone else EVER.

I have to disagree with you here. WWE may not call what they do wrestling, but they aren't fooling anyone. A bodyslam is no less a professional wrestling move than suplex. And both are definitely more of a professional wrestling move than hitting someone in the head with a light tube. Wrestling is WORKED. You and I should not be able to go out and have a wrestling match. That is what sets us apart from the wrestlers. What makes them "professionals." You and I COULD go out and put on a deathmatch. Pain tolerance would be an issue, but that is not a physical skill.

1. Meltzer is a fuckin MORON and ppl know not to listen to him anymore.

2. We wouldn't be able to put on a GOOD deathmatch; me & you. We couldn't put on a Terry Funk/Cactus Jack deathmatch; or a Pogo/Matsunaga deathmatch. Hell, me and a couple of my buddies put on legitimately GOOD wrestling matches when I was in college; but they weren't HBK v. Hitman, ya know. I think the problem is that most guys who don't like hardcore wrestling act as though those of us who DO like it like EVERY death match and hardcore match; not true. I don't like Axl Rotten at all, but Sabu is one of the greats of all time. I acknowledge that a lot of hardcore stuff sucks but that doesn't mean there haven't been awesome, epic, IMPORTANT hardcore matches, promotions, and wrestlers ( Terry Funk v. Cactus Jack, ECW, and SABU!); that's a ridiculous assertion. If hardcore wrestling hurts the biz bc of it's emphasis on ultraviolence, then WWE is hurting the biz bc it almost completely ignores ALL other promotions in existence as if there IS no industry, only WWE. I think that THAT hurts the business a LOT more than some jack-offs hitting each other with lightbulbs.

But that's just my opinion

[Big Red Machine]

2. We wouldn't be able to put on a GOOD deathmatch; me & you. We couldn't put on a Terry Funk/Cactus Jack deathmatch; or a Pogo/Matsunaga deathmatch. Hell, me and a couple of my buddies put on legitimately GOOD wrestling matches when I was in college; but they weren't HBK v. Hitman, ya know. I think the problem is that most guys who don't like hardcore wrestling act as though those of us who DO like it like EVERY death match and hardcore match; not true. I don't like Axl Rotten at all, but Sabu is one of the greats of all time. I acknowledge that a lot of hardcore stuff sucks but that doesn't mean there haven't been awesome, epic, IMPORTANT hardcore matches, promotions, and wrestlers ( Terry Funk v. Cactus Jack, ECW, and SABU!); that's a ridiculous assertion. If hardcore wrestling hurts the biz bc of it's emphasis on ultraviolence, then WWE is hurting the biz bc it almost completely ignores ALL other promotions in existence as if there IS no industry, only WWE. I think that THAT hurts the business a LOT more than some jack-offs hitting each other with lightbulbs.

But that's just my opinion

I don't see how you can blame WWE for pretending that they are the only company around when that was what EVERYONE used to do. The NWA World Champ would occasionally come to town, but other than that, no wrestling outside of that territory was ever talked about.

[badnewzxl]

2. We wouldn't be able to put on a GOOD deathmatch; me & you. We couldn't put on a Terry Funk/Cactus Jack deathmatch; or a Pogo/Matsunaga deathmatch. Hell, me and a couple of my buddies put on legitimately GOOD wrestling matches when I was in college; but they weren't HBK v. Hitman, ya know. I think the problem is that most guys who don't like hardcore wrestling act as though those of us who DO like it like EVERY death match and hardcore match; not true. I don't like Axl Rotten at all, but Sabu is one of the greats of all time. I acknowledge that a lot of hardcore stuff sucks but that doesn't mean there haven't been awesome, epic, IMPORTANT hardcore matches, promotions, and wrestlers ( Terry Funk v. Cactus Jack, ECW, and SABU!); that's a ridiculous assertion. If hardcore wrestling hurts the biz bc of it's emphasis on ultraviolence, then WWE is hurting the biz bc it almost completely ignores ALL other promotions in existence as if there IS no industry, only WWE. I think that THAT hurts the business a LOT more than some jack-offs hitting each other with lightbulbs.

But that's just my opinion

I don't see how you can blame WWE for pretending that they are the only company around when that was what EVERYONE used to do. The NWA World Champ would occasionally come to town, but other than that, no wrestling outside of that territory was ever talked about.

yea; before there was tv. Since then, every promotion would at least mention a promotion when they acquired a talent from there.

When WWE pretends they are the only show in town; and reprimand their talent for using the term "wrestling," they are hurting the business WAAAY more than anybody else! How can you be #1 in an industry and not acknowledge yourself as part of it. That's SOOOO disrespectful to the business; SIGNIFICANTLY more insulting than some guys cutting each other with broken glass. They are stupid, yes; and I understand where someone may feel they are hurting the business, tho I disagree. But to disassociate yourself from the industry you are assumed to be at the top of, it just comes off as you feeling you are above the industry; that "wrestling" is below you. That would be like Jay Z claiming he doesn't "rap" any more; it would be totally disrespectful to that industry. It's a delusion of grandeur; egomaniacal bullshit.

[Big Red Machine]

2. We wouldn't be able to put on a GOOD deathmatch; me & you. We couldn't put on a Terry Funk/Cactus Jack deathmatch; or a Pogo/Matsunaga deathmatch. Hell, me and a couple of my buddies put on legitimately GOOD wrestling matches when I was in college; but they weren't HBK v. Hitman, ya know. I think the problem is that most guys who don't like hardcore wrestling act as though those of us who DO like it like EVERY death match and hardcore match; not true. I don't like Axl Rotten at all, but Sabu is one of the greats of all time. I acknowledge that a lot of hardcore stuff sucks but that doesn't mean there haven't been awesome, epic, IMPORTANT hardcore matches, promotions, and wrestlers ( Terry Funk v. Cactus Jack, ECW, and SABU!); that's a ridiculous assertion. If hardcore wrestling hurts the biz bc of it's emphasis on ultraviolence, then WWE is hurting the biz bc it almost completely ignores ALL other promotions in existence as if there IS no industry, only WWE. I think that THAT hurts the business a LOT more than some jack-offs hitting each other with lightbulbs.

But that's just my opinion

I don't see how you can blame WWE for pretending that they are the only company around when that was what EVERYONE used to do. The NWA World Champ would occasionally come to town, but other than that, no wrestling outside of that territory was ever talked about.

yea; before there was tv. Since then, every promotion would at least mention a promotion when they acquired a talent from there.

When WWE pretends they are the only show in town; and reprimand their talent for using the term "wrestling," they are hurting the business WAAAY more than anybody else! How can you be #1 in an industry and not acknowledge yourself as part of it. That's SOOOO disrespectful to the business; SIGNIFICANTLY more insulting than some guys cutting each other with broken glass. They are stupid, yes; and I understand where someone may feel they are hurting the business, tho I disagree. But to disassociate yourself from the industry you are assumed to be at the top of, it just comes off as you feeling you are above the industry; that "wrestling" is below you. That would be like Jay Z claiming he doesn't "rap" any more; it would be totally disrespectful to that industry. It's a delusion of grandeur; egomaniacal *censored*.

It is the same thing. It's not WWE feeling that they are too good for wrestling. Look at TNA. They pretend that they and WWE are the only two companies in the US and Canada.Why tell someone who might not know about it about your competition? TNA figures that no one who knows about TNA doesn't know about WWE. You would NEVER see TNA plug ROH or CHIKARA or FIP. I don't fault either company for doing it.

[badnewzxl]

It is the same thing. It's not WWE feeling that they are too good for wrestling. Look at TNA. They pretend that they and WWE are the only two companies in the US and Canada.Why tell someone who might not know about it about your competition? TNA figures that no one who knows about TNA doesn't know about WWE. You would NEVER see TNA plug ROH or CHIKARA or FIP. I don't fault either company for doing it.

They mention New Japan and AAA all the time; and in the past, they DID mention ROH from time to time (When Desmond Wolfe made his debut backstage talking to Kurt Angle, Taz said: "Hey, that's Nigel McGuiness" the second they showed him on screen. They had Shelley, Aries, and Strong as a faction in TNA at the same time they were a faction in ROH, and they even extended the Daniels/Joe feud from ROH into TNA. They VERY often remind you there are other wrestling promotions out there.); WWE never mentions other promotions bc they don't want competition. Vince has said himself that he enjoys competition, yet he argues that no one else does what he does. I understand that when you're on top, there's no reason to mention the other guys bc you're the best and all; but if WCW would have done that, WWE would prolly have folded first and we'd all be pretty bad off. I give the WWE and Vince McMahon the fact that they took wrestling to it's highest point and I'm glad it's still around and on top; but CONSTANTLY telling everyone outside of wrestling that what you do ISN'T wrestling (despite the fact that they will ALWAYS continue to call it wrestling) makes Vince and co. look like Silas Lapham: a guy who worked really hard and had a strong family behind him and took the family business and made it something huge, but never truly appreciated what he had bc he and his family wanted to be accepted in a way they didn't feel they could be, being who they truly were. I just find that shit to be bourgeois, and I think it's a lot more disrespectful to your business to disown it than it is to abuse it....

[Lynas]

I'm with Jim Cornette when it comes to Hardcore wrestling...

As long as it escalates to it & it's people hitting people with furniture, that's fine... but like many hardcore wrestling companies *COUGH* XPW *COUGH*... that just hit furniture with people... spots for the sake for it and just throwing bodies allsorts for no reason with no build up, it just isn't watchable.

I love hardcore matches and wrestling, in fact, my favourite 2 ever matches are both street fights with big stories that lead to them...

I guess my point is... if it escalates to hardcore levels correctly or is an annual tournament. That's great.

If it's for the hell of it with spots just to smash up tables and lightubes... forget about it.

[Lynas]

They mention New Japan and AAA all the time; and in the past, they DID mention ROH from time to time

Well this is because TNA currently hold working relationships with both NJPW & AAA. They've always been on amicable terms with ROH too. Hence all the talent shares that go around etc.

They're not going to mention companies they don't need to or benefit from and from a business point of view, you cannot blame them.

WWE have been known to acknowledge ROH from time to time as they also have some form of relationship their, as they've taken several of their talent from there in the last couple of years, but why would you mention another company if you as a business fail to gain from it... simple answer you don't. Which is why WWE is mostly tight lipped regarding other companies...

PLUS. It's only on airtime & their website that they don't acknowledge these companies... their talent in interviews always mention TNA or ROH or others... and they never get punished for that... even Vince himself has spoken about these companies in interviews before.

Vince just doesn't have it on his airwaves... and for that I don't blame him.

[Aggro]

Good topic and some great reading.

I'd just like to point out Cornette's initial reason for his dislike of the Hardcore style and ECW, although I'm sure other factors came into it.

Cornette said that the hardcore style used in ECW took away the tools which are used to draw heat. With ECW saturating their shows with chairshots, tablebreakages, frying pan hits etc, then the use of a basic chair shot to bust someone open, in another compnay as part of a storyline, makes less of impact to the fans becuase they've seen a match recently where a guy took 8 chairshots and then came back to put the other guy through a flaming table. Cornette's views on ECW are slighlty unfair, considering they could put on some really good matches at times, any RVD vs Jerry Lynn was always great to watch.

I see what Jim is getting at, but I think he is selling the fans short somewhat. We know what to expect when we switch onto these different companies. I know that there is gonna be a good quality wrestling match when I watch ROH, so if a chair shot is used, it's desired effect is still there, because chances are, the previous matches did not contain any foreign objects. Likewise, if I watch CZW, I know I'm gonna see blood and snot at some point, so could be pleasantly surprised if a good 15 - 20 minute tag match took place with no use of weapons.

Time was, WWE had a bit of everything and the majority of people could come away feeling entertained. Now it seems we have to go to individual companies to get our fill of our fancy. We want Hardcore, we go CZW. We want good wrestling, we go ROH. We want hollywood and drama, we go WWE.

[Big Red Machine]

It is the same thing. It's not WWE feeling that they are too good for wrestling. Look at TNA. They pretend that they and WWE are the only two companies in the US and Canada.Why tell someone who might not know about it about your competition? TNA figures that no one who knows about TNA doesn't know about WWE. You would NEVER see TNA plug ROH or CHIKARA or FIP. I don't fault either company for doing it.

They mention New Japan and AAA all the time; and in the past, they DID mention ROH from time to time (When Desmond Wolfe made his debut backstage talking to Kurt Angle, Taz said: "Hey, that's Nigel McGuiness" the second they showed him on screen. They had Shelley, Aries, and Strong as a faction in TNA at the same time they were a faction in ROH, and they even extended the Daniels/Joe feud from ROH into TNA. They VERY often remind you there are other wrestling promotions out there.); WWE never mentions other promotions bc they don't want competition. Vince has said himself that he enjoys competition, yet he argues that no one else does what he does. I understand that when you're on top, there's no reason to mention the other guys bc you're the best and all; but if WCW would have done that, WWE would prolly have folded first and we'd all be pretty bad off. I give the WWE and Vince McMahon the fact that they took wrestling to it's highest point and I'm glad it's still around and on top; but CONSTANTLY telling everyone outside of wrestling that what you do ISN'T wrestling (despite the fact that they will ALWAYS continue to call it wrestling) makes Vince and co. look like Silas Lapham: a guy who worked really hard and had a strong family behind him and took the family business and made it something huge, but never truly appreciated what he had bc he and his family wanted to be accepted in a way they didn't feel they could be, being who they truly were. I just find that s**t to be bourgeois, and I think it's a lot more disrespectful to your business to disown it than it is to abuse it....

TNA is business partners with AAA and NJPW. That is why they mention them. You don't see 1PW or CMLL or All Japan or NOAH getting mentioned.
As for Nigel: That was likely more due to Nigel not having a name yet, and Taz knowing who he was. Taz looked pretty silly when Nigel introduce himself as "Desmond Wolfe" eight seconds later. Also, mentioning Nigel by his ROH ring name is not the same as mentioning ROH. Look at CM Punk! Nobody says that WWE is mentioning ROH.
Also, "extending" a feud or a faction is not the same as mentioning the promotion. If you didn't know about ROH at the time (like me at the time, who had heard of the promotion, but didn't know anything about it), then you don't recognize that they brought Gen Next back together, or that Joe and Daniels were feuding in a different promotion.
As for WCW doing it... WCW NEVER mentioned WWF in any sort of complementary manner (like TNA does for NJPW or AAA, and ROH does for NOAH, FIP, SHIMMER, and its various partners). You really can't compare the two.
As for Vince: I never said I thought that what Vince was doing was "more respectful" to the business; just that I thought it was hurting it less.