Source: bleacherreport.com
By Richard Corey (Contributor) on November 2, 2012

Hi there new TNA Impact viewer.

Chances are, you started watching as a result of the rave reviews TNA's Bound for Glory series received throughout the summer. Then the absolutely deafening buzz the company received after it's nigh perfect followup pay-per-view of the same name probably sealed the deal.

You are now one of us, the many and apprehensively proud -- TNA fan. Welcome to the fold.

But here's the thing, there's nothing normal about TNA, as far as what you're probably accustomed to.

There are some things you, and everyone for that matter, has to simply accept about TNA; things that just aren't going to go away.

This is to enhance your enjoyment because, for good or for ill, TNA is the last bastion of real wrestling left.

WWE Has Destroyed Your Concept of Wrestling

Okay, first things first: WWE is a spectacle, it is not wrestling. It's not meant to be wrestling. It's meant to be entertainment and fun -- and that is fine.

Monday Night Raw, Survivor Series, Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania; somewhere along the line, Vincent K. McMahon came to the conclusion that bigger meant better. As a result, we now have this overblown and over-exagerrated concept of what wrestling should be, complete with fireworks, pyrotechnics, and the best filmmakers that money can buy.

But that's not wrestling, that's wrestling entertainment.

If you look at any other sporting event whether it be baseball, basketball or football, there are no light shows or pathways of flaming torches, because the draw is the sport. Nowadays, people expect wrestling to be over-the-top if only for the example set by the near monopoly the WWE has had on the industry.

People expect large behemoths and giants lumbering around the ring; they expect heroes that never lose and villains that can never win; they expect short, shallow story lines with no connection to history; they expect magic and characters, absolute good and evil. So much so that when someone does something different, like say, have a good guy not win the big one -- people go into hysterics. It's not what they're used to.

When Bobby Roode lost his title match against Kurt Angle at 2011's Bound for Glory, you'd have thought the Gobbledy Gooker had returned. Nevermind the fact that we wouldn't have the Bobby Roode we all love to hate now, had we not had that unexpected plot twist; wrestling fans have been conditioned to expect the obvious.

If you're going to watch TNA, you're going to have to expect the unexpected. For all the whining people do about TNA's booking, they fail to realize what stories like Roode's truly do is cement an idea that "anything can happen."

Case in point: Bully Ray's involvement in this year's Bound for Glory. WWE logic dictates that Bully should turn on Sting. That's what the build up suggested, and that's what the fans expected. What they didn't expect was for Bully to effectively turn face and for Devon to have been partially behind Aces and Eights all along.

It was a swerve that had everyone on the edge of their seats.

Just Because Booking Doesn't Go Your Way, Doesn't Make It "Bad"

TNA has an unfair reputation for "bad booking," even though the concept as we know it, doesn't truly exist.

That's right, there's no such thing as "bad booking."

There's only booking you want to happen, and booking you don't; booking that makes sense to you and booking that doesn't. It's all about your expectations and how close a company's creative team comes to meeting them.

For example, there are some people who feel it was bad booking for Jeff Hardy to beat Austin Aries for the TNA World Championship, not because the story doesn't make sense, but because they simply don't like Hardy. Similarly, some people think having RVD win the X-Division Championship is bad booking because of his age, even though the decision was obviously a move to get Joey Ryan into a fued with a big name.

For the most part, there are always reasons and stories behind a creative teams decision to go against your expectation. Was Zema Ion's paltry title run the result of bad booking, or was it because of the legit injuries that effectively sidelined everyone in his division? Was Samoa Joe's initial World title run destroyed by bad booking, or did it actually have to do with his notorious attitude backstage?

Now don't get me wrong, there are instances of "rushed" or "sloppy" booking. With live shows and pay-per-views they are an inevitability and happen to every company (think TNA's championship debacle with 2011 Bound for Glory or John Cena being made to go over Brock Lesnar at Extreme Rules). But these are just storylines that, no matter how out of place they initially seem, can still be built into better narratives with even better payoffs (i.e., the 2011 Bound for Glory debacle leading to Roode vs. Storm, Bound for Glory 2012).

Bad booking, it appears, is in the eye of the beholder.

Now...that Claire Lynch thing on the other hand...

Production Will Always Be a Little 'Raw'

Okay, let's first get this out of the way: Yes, TNA's production is a little subpar.

Okay...okay, it's very subpar.

That's kind of what you get when you're working with the budget and financial backing that TNA has. They just don't have the money to hire top notch production staff. Backstage promos are going to get cut short, audio will go out, and video will flicker. But there's something to be said for the rawness that a low tech, shoestring budget brings.

If WWE is the wrestling industry version of a big budget horror movie like the Halloween remake, then TNA is the Blair Witch.

TNA is rawer than anything WWE's Monday night show has produced in years. A lot of their dialogue and matches are entirely improved, there's relatively little choreography so the hits are harder, and fan participation goes unchecked and unedited. When it comes to TNA, they may not have a lot of glitz and glamour, but some of the best art has been made from meager materials.

A lot of this rawness also comes from the fact that the Impact Zone is relatively small. It makes the fans seem closer, giving the ringside action more weight.

Watching TNA feels like watching old NWA recordings, where the biggest attractions were the wrestlers and their screaming, riotous fans. Some things aren't captured via a tank full of money and the best cameras in the world.

TNA has a lot less to lose than it's big industry counterpart and is willing to takes more chances. Sometimes it works and you get a great character like Joseph Parks, and sometimes it doesn't work and somone yells, "cut!"

Hogan and Sting Aren't Going Anywhere

Hulk Hogan and Sting have had their days in the sun, you say. They have conquered the world and no longer need to crowbar themselves into every storyline, if any. As veterans they should fade into the background, taking management roles, while focusing on the development of new and younger talent.

To that I say, "nonsense."

If you are going to watch TNA, then you have to accept one unyielding fact: Hogan and Sting must be involved in TNA storylines, less the company go under for good.

The day Hogan and/or Sting leaves TNA is the day the company goes downhill. I'm sorry to break this to you, but anyone who thinks either of these two should just vanish from the screen have no idea how big they are individually, let alone together.

Sting is one of the most iconic wrestlers in the industry. He carried WCW on his back for years while they were being destroyed by the WWE in the early 90s. Hogan's contributions to the industry don't need to be explained, do they?

Not only are these the biggest names TNA has at the moment, they are the biggest names of any wrestling company, period. If you walked up to the average non-wrestling fan on the street and asked him or her to name the best professional wrestler of all time, nine times out of 10 they are going to say either Hulk Hogan or Sting; not Cena, not Orton, not Roode, not Aries.

Internationally, these are the guys that are putting butts in seats. And it's these guys that give TNA a sense of history that predates its early '00s creation, connecting it to the NWA era where the company draws much of its inspiration.

Over the past year, both Hogan and Sting have scaled back their on screen roles, which is fine. But TNA and its fans would be foolish to call for their removal altogether; that's far too much money to leave on the table.

You Have to Really Like Wrestling

TNA doesn't have the best production team, they don't have the biggest arena and their talent sometimes exceeds their episodic capacity, but its the wrestling that redeems everything.

TNA Impact main events rarely fail to live up to pay-per-view standards. They are exciting, high-speed affairs that involve every style of wrestling that currently exists. Whether it be mat-based, aerial, brawling or technical, TNA has a wrestler that embodies that style and masters it.

While WWE wrestlers -- due to the high volume of performances -- become very formulaic with their move sets, TNA wrestlers are allowed to mix things up. And also because the show isn't aimed at a younger demographic, they're allowed to be more edgy with their matches, incorporating a higher level of violence and risk that older fans can appreciate.

Also, due to the limited screen time available for talent, TNA regularly features the best-of-the-best with mediocre wrestlers slowly weeded out. There are no Brodus Clays in TNA, no David Otungas and no Great Khalis. With only two hours, everyone has to be able to go hard.

So yes, there can be some low points to an average TNA episode, but the high points of wrestling make it well worth it.

Time to rip this apart:

Which propaganda-monger wrote this?

TNA is the last bastion of real wrestling left.

ROH, PWG, DGUSA and a whole bunch of other companies have a lot more claim to being a bastion of "real wrestling" than TNA does.
And more importantly: what makes WWE not "real" pro wrestling?

WWE Has Destroyed Your Concept of Wrestling

Okay, first things first: WWE is a spectacle, it is not wrestling. It's not meant to be wrestling. It's meant to be entertainment and fun -- and that is fine.

Monday Night Raw, Survivor Series, Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania; somewhere along the line, Vincent K. McMahon came to the conclusion that bigger meant better. As a result, we now have this overblown and over-exagerrated concept of what wrestling should be, complete with fireworks, pyrotechnics, and the best filmmakers that money can buy.

But that's not wrestling, that's wrestling entertainment.

If you look at any other sporting event whether it be baseball, basketball or football, there are no light shows or pathways of flaming torches, because the draw is the sport. Nowadays, people expect wrestling to be over-the-top if only for the example set by the near monopoly the WWE has had on the industry.

There are no pyro or light shows at other sporting events? BS. They play individual "entrance" music for every batter who steps into the batters box, they dim the lights and have little light shows when the home team enters during a basketball or hockey game, and there is pyro whenever the home team comes out of the tunnel for a football game.

I'd like to draw your attention to this particular gem:

But that's not wrestling, that's wrestling entertainment.

And isn't wrestling supposed to be entertainment? I'm not seeing the problem here.

People expect large behemoths and giants lumbering around the ring; they expect heroes that never lose and villains that can never win; they expect short, shallow story lines with no connection to history; they expect magic and characters, absolute good and evil. So much so that when someone does something different, like say, have a good guy not win the big one -- people go into hysterics. It's not what they're used to.

Sir, allow me to introduce you to the Hogan-Bischoff era in TNA, where it felt like we went at least a year before a non-Abyss heel got a clean win!
Shallow storylines with no connection to history? That is par for the course in TNA! This is the company that had Kazarian come out and save his wife Traci from ridicule at the hands of Jeff and Karen Jarrett, and that was supposed to be a big touching moment... except that only a few weeks before that, they had done a segment where Traci admitted to putting out for Eric Bischoff in order to try to gain political power!
WWE has only absolute good and evil while TNA doesn't? WWE took months to fully turn Daniel Bryan heel, and even CM Punk hasn't gone as far as quickly as Bobby Roode did last November when, rather than tell the much more intricate and artistic story of a man driven by his desire for the title that in a moment of weakness he cheated and hurt a friend in order to get it... they just flipped a magical switch in his head and made him a bad guy.

When Bobby Roode lost his title match against Kurt Angle at 2011's Bound for Glory, you'd have thought the Gobbledy Gooker had returned. Nevermind the fact that we wouldn't have the Bobby Roode we all love to hate now, had we not had that unexpected plot twist; wrestling fans have been conditioned to expect the obvious.

If you're going to watch TNA, you're going to have to expect the unexpected. For all the whining people do about TNA's booking, they fail to realize what stories like Roode's truly do is cement an idea that "anything can happen."

Case in point: Bully Ray's involvement in this year's Bound for Glory. WWE logic dictates that Bully should turn on Sting. That's what the build up suggested, and that's what the fans expected. What they didn't expect was for Bully to effectively turn face and for Devon to have been partially behind Aces and Eights all along.

It was a swerve that had everyone on the edge of their seats.

I will be one of the first people to say that wrestling fans seem to have lost their ability to be pissed off for the right reasons, and Roode vs. Angle was a case of that.

Yes, people were expecting Bully to turn at BFG, but no one was complaining because he didn't. They expressed their surprise... but that is not the same as complaining. People complained that Devon turned not because they didn't expect it... they complained that Devon turned because IT MADE NO SENSE and TNA's attempts to explain it away have not only made very little sense, but have ignored the last two years of Bully Ray and Devon's careers! Hmmm... that sounds a lot like... what was that phrase again? OH YEAH!

shallow story lines with no connection to history

Oh... and whoever wrote this needs to pay more attention to Impact because Devon wasn't "partially behind Aces & Eights all along." according to Devon's own words, he only joined them once he lost his job in TNA, but Aces & Eights were here back in June.

Just Because Booking Doesn't Go Your Way, Doesn't Make It "Bad"

TNA has an unfair reputation for "bad booking," even though the concept as we know it, doesn't truly exist.

That's right, there's no such thing as "bad booking."

There's only booking you want to happen, and booking you don't; booking that makes sense to you and booking that doesn't. It's all about your expectations and how close a company's creative team comes to meeting them.

No. Just no. If something doesn't make sense to a rational human being, it is bad booking. For example, AJ Styles and Dixie Carter decided that they needed to hide the fact that they were helping a random recovering drug addict from absolutely everyone, even their families, to the point where they willing to NOT DENY A COMPLETELY FALSE ALLEGATION THAT THEY WERE HAVING AN AFFAIR (which could destroy both of their families) rather than tell the truth that they were doing something nice for someone. This MAKES NO SENSE! Therefore, it is bad booking. If they come out on TV the next week and present a sensible explanation, it is no longer bad booking, but that's not what happened! TNA angles are riddled with plot-holes like this, much more so than WWE.

For example, there are some people who feel it was bad booking for Jeff Hardy to beat Austin Aries for the TNA World Championship, not because the story doesn't make sense, but because they simply don't like Hardy. Similarly, some people think having RVD win the X-Division Championship is bad booking because of his age, even though the decision was obviously a move to get Joey Ryan into a fued with a big name.

For the most part, there are always reasons and stories behind a creative teams decision to go against your expectation. Was Zema Ion's paltry title run the result of bad booking, or was it because of the legit injuries that effectively sidelined everyone in his division? Was Samoa Joe's initial World title run destroyed by bad booking, or did it actually have to do with his notorious attitude backstage?

Now don't get me wrong, there are instances of "rushed" or "sloppy" booking. With live shows and pay-per-views they are an inevitability and happen to every company (think TNA's championship debacle with 2011 Bound for Glory or John Cena being made to go over Brock Lesnar at Extreme Rules). But these are just storylines that, no matter how out of place they initially seem, can still be built into better narratives with even better payoffs (i.e., the 2011 Bound for Glory debacle leading to Roode vs. Storm, Bound for Glory 2012).

Bad booking, it appears, is in the eye of the beholder.

Now...that Claire Lynch thing on the other hand...

I will not deny that some people don't like Jeff Hardy and that some people are too harsh on TNA for pushing guys like RVD (Van Dam can still work, Sting... not so much), but this guy needs to get his facts straight. Joe's backstage attitude problems started in the summer of 2009 (you know, after the dumb sh*t with the ninjas). Joe's "attitude problems backstage were because he felt he wasn't being used well. I'm pretty sure that being world champ, Joe would feel that he was being used well. He also seems to have forgotten how most of this year went in TNA. Storm and Roode had an absolutely awesome match at BFG... but the hate was nowhere near what it should have been for a blow-off match one year in the making (especially when they haven't had that many singles matches). Compare this to Steen vs. Generico. THAT is what this should have been, in terms of hatred. Steen and Generico managed to keep their hatred not just the whole year that they were feuding, but for YEARS after that (the pop that even something ridiculous like Generico's mask in the box at Glory By Honor XI got is proof enough of that).

The other thing he seems to be missing here is that TNA rarely turns this chicken sh*t into chicken salad. Yeah, he names one example of that... but that is about it, compared to the other 99 times out of a hundred.

Production Will Always Be a Little 'Raw'

Okay, let's first get this out of the way: Yes, TNA's production is a little subpar.

Okay...okay, it's very subpar.

That's kind of what you get when you're working with the budget and financial backing that TNA has. They just don't have the money to hire top notch production staff. Backstage promos are going to get cut short, audio will go out, and video will flicker. But there's something to be said for the rawness that a low tech, shoestring budget brings.

If WWE is the wrestling industry version of a big budget horror movie like the Halloween remake, then TNA is the Blair Witch.

TNA is rawer than anything WWE's Monday night show has produced in years. A lot of their dialogue and matches are entirely improved, there's relatively little choreography so the hits are harder, and fan participation goes unchecked and unedited.

Now I am not someone who as ever criticized the look of TNA or the camera quality because I really don't care too much about that sort of thing, but there are things that this guy says here that need to be addressed:
First of all, there is a big difference between TV production, and how choreographed the moves seem or how stiff the chops are, or how scripted the promos are. The promos are up to the creative staff and the wrestlers, and the matches are up to the wrestlers. Those are not "production issues."

"Fan participation is unchecked and unedited? Have you ever heard that crowd that TNA performs in front of at the Garden? And when I say "the Garden" I don't mean MSG. When I say "the Garden" I mean the Impact Zone... because it's full of plants (get it?). This is TNA that piped in cheers by the zillions when they were in the UK so that Garrett Bischoff wouldn't seem like the super-under (or whatever the opposite of super-over is) chump that he is once they got in front of real fans, rather than Universal park-goers.

When it comes to TNA, they may not have a lot of glitz and glamour, but some of the best art has been made from meager materials.

Oh, don't even try to give me that BS. TNA is owned by Panda Energy, and has been since late 2002. You can't pretend to be the little guy when you are owned by a corporate giant. Maybe TNA would have some more money if the booking wasn't so horrible that they are losing hundreds of thousands of dollars a year (and that is while they are paying the Knockouts and the X-Division what amounts to hot dogs and sodas). You want "some of the best art" "made from meager materials"? Go watch ROH in 2005 and 2006.

A lot of this rawness also comes from the fact that the Impact Zone is relatively small. It makes the fans seem closer, giving the ringside action more weight.

Watching TNA feels like watching old NWA recordings, where the biggest attractions were the wrestlers and their screaming, riotous fans. Some things aren't captured via a tank full of money and the best cameras in the world.

If only those fans would cheer without being prompted to.

TNA has a lot less to lose than it's big industry counterpart and is willing to takes more chances. Sometimes it works and you get a great character like Joseph Parks, and sometimes it doesn't work and somone yells, "cut!"

These are two entirely different things! Yes, Joseph Park was a major risk as a a character, he has worked... but Joseph Park is a risk on the CREATIVE side of things. Someone yelling "CUT!" is a production screw-up! And as for that being okay from time to time... not when you have professional staff it isn't! My brother works for a college TV station and they don't screw up like that!

Hogan and Sting Aren't Going Anywhere

Hulk Hogan and Sting have had their days in the sun, you say. They have conquered the world and no longer need to crowbar themselves into every storyline, if any. As veterans they should fade into the background, taking management roles, while focusing on the development of new and younger talent.

To that I say, "nonsense."

If you are going to watch TNA, then you have to accept one unyielding fact: Hogan and Sting must be involved in TNA storylines, less the company go under for good.

The day Hogan and/or Sting leaves TNA is the day the company goes downhill. I'm sorry to break this to you, but anyone who thinks either of these two should just vanish from the screen have no idea how big they are individually, let alone together.

Sting is one of the most iconic wrestlers in the industry. He carried WCW on his back for years while they were being destroyed by the WWE in the early 90s. Hogan's contributions to the industry don't need to be explained, do they?

Right because TNA didn't get anywhere before Hogan came in. Then why have their ratings and buys not gone up since he has?
Anyway, I absolutely must address the logic in this paragraph here.

Not only are these the biggest names TNA has at the moment, they are the biggest names of any wrestling company, period. If you walked up to the average non-wrestling fan on the street and asked him or her to name the best professional wrestler of all time, nine times out of 10 they are going to say either Hulk Hogan or Sting; not Cena, not Orton, not Roode, not Aries.

Although he doesn't realize it, the only important words in this guy's paragraph here is "non-wrestling fan." Who gives a damn what non-wrestling fans think? (And before anyone goes off on an angry tangent: Yes casual fans are wrestling fans). If the local opera house wants to put on an opera, they're not going to say "hey BRM, what do you think is the best opera?" because I am not an opera fan, and thus it is highly unlikely that I will pay to see any opera that they put on, even if it is the opera that I told them I think is the best ever.

Furthermore, if this is true and Hogan and Sting are still super-mega draws while Orton and Cena are not, why does WWE outdraw TNA everywhere they go? And if this were true, why are TNA's largest crowds from before Hogan came in? Surely if this were True BFG 2011's Hogan vs. Sting match would draw more people than Angle vs. Joe did at Lockdown 2008... but Lockdown 2008 drew almost twice as many people!

Internationally, these are the guys that are putting butts in seats. And it's these guys that give TNA a sense of history that predates its early '00s creation, connecting it to the NWA era where the company draws much of its inspiration.

Not true at all, the cheers during TNA's UK trips will tell you. And what inspiration does TNA draw from the NWA?

Over the past year, both Hogan and Sting have scaled back their on screen roles, which is fine. But TNA and its fans would be foolish to call for their removal altogether; that's far too much money to leave on the table.

Yeah, money that would be left in the pocket of the rest of the roster with TNA not having to pay Hogan (most of Sting's contract is still paid for by Spike, I believe).

You Have to Really Like Wrestling

TNA doesn't have the best production team, they don't have the biggest arena and their talent sometimes exceeds their episodic capacity, but its the wrestling that redeems everything.

TNA Impact main events rarely fail to live up to pay-per-view standards.

Dear G-d, how low are your standards? We are lucky if we get ten minutes of televised wrestling in an Impact main event!

They are exciting, high-speed affairs that involve every style of wrestling that currently exists. Whether it be mat-based, aerial, brawling or technical, TNA has a wrestler that embodies that style and masters it.

And the same with ROH, WWE, PWG, CHIKARA, and everyone else with a decently-sized roster.

While WWE wrestlers -- due to the high volume of performances -- become very formulaic with their move sets, TNA wrestlers are allowed to mix things up. And also because the show isn't aimed at a younger demographic, they're allowed to be more edgy with their matches, incorporating a higher level of violence and risk that older fans can appreciate

Really? Really? WWE matches are no more formulaic than anyone else's and the "PG is bad" route? Really? PWG is a pretty PG in-ring product (in terms of the violence level, I mean. Candice LeRae matches are not PG, but not because of the violence) No one seems to complain about the violence level in PWG. Also, WWE has put on some great No DQ's matches in the PG-era, so that's clearly not the problem here.

Also, due to the limited screen time available for talent, TNA regularly features the best-of-the-best with mediocre wrestlers slowly weeded out. There are no Brodus Clays in TNA, no David Otungas and no Great Khalis. With only two hours, everyone has to be able to go hard.

No. There are no Khalis or Otungas, but the Garrett Bischoff and the Robbies are on TV every while Kenny King, Doug Williams, and others sit on the shelf (and in the past people like Alex Shelley, Homicide, Cheerleader Melissa, and Amazing Red have been left to rot while much less talented wrestlers like Madison Rayne, Jesse Sorensen, and the Robbie's have been thrown at our TV).

So yes, there can be some low points to an average TNA episode, but the high points of wrestling make it well worth it.

The wrestling quality in WWE from the mid-card up is actually usually better than in TNA, and is even better on the ROH TV show, so why don't you go watch that instead of making ridiculous arguments in a futile attempted to defend Impact?