The Figure Four - ALL Things ECW-WWF-NJPW-TNA-ROH-AEW

[Drop]

something like that...it's gotta happen EVENTUALLY

[Heidenreich]

What are we in? Year four of the smarks demanding that Cena turn heel?

Four? I think it's more like seven.

The thing is, the kids like Cena. We are not the target demo anymore. Until the children turn on Cena, he's not turning heel. SImple as that.

Obviously I agree, theres a lot of things they can do to make the product better, but I for one am enjoying the 3 hour raws. Watch them on DVR so I can FF through the crap. But there was a nice little Bryan/Mysterio match Monday night. And a hell of a Punk/Jericho one as well. As long as the wrestling is good, I can suffer or FF through the crap.

[DM72]

It's sort of unfortunate that Backlund has to go in this year. That guy is always going to be overshadowed by the long-reigning champ before him and the long-reigning champ after him. He's like the Larry Holmes of WWWF/WWF/WWE champions. Having Bruno go in with him really sort of diminishes him.

Backlund never gets any credit anyway' date=' but he played a character that was pretty original and that I don't think has ever really been attempted before or since. He was the absolute example of the squeaky-clean, white bread babyface. Except he has kind of a prick. There's a pretty good match between him and a heel Hogan on Youtube that is interesting for a number of reasons.

1. Even a green heel Hogan had chemistry coming out of every pore.

2. Hogan wins by countout because Backlund is too beat up to get back into the ring, which was a strange way for a babyface champ to lose.

3. Backlund acts like a total douche before and after the match, doing this weird act that is just this side of "Bro...hold me back....I mean it, bro....hold me back."

---------- Post added February-5th-2013 at 02:39 PM ----------

The only thing I thing Bruno has ever been really bitter about is how he thinks Vince ruined his relationship with his son David.

I lived in Pittsburgh for a few years and Bruno is an icon there. He was also still pretty visible in the sense that everyone in his neighborhood was used to see the sixty-something, really muscular guy running every day. He's not bitter in the way most old wrestlers are. He has money. He was married to the same woman forever. He lived in the same house forever. He had grandkids. He could go into a local restaurant and have people get excited without bugging him. He was (and probably still is) in awesome physical shape.

He had an issue with his oldest son though. David was a mediocre wrestler who Vince signed before the first Wrestlemania. Bruno was a (bad) commentator then and didn't want David to wrestle. He also did not want to wrestle himself. He - again - was unlike other wrestlers in that when he retired, he wanted to retire. Vince kept convincing him to tag with David and get involved in storylines, promising that it would be good for David's career. It wasn't good for David's career, but it was awesome for Vince who could have Bruno sell out the traditional northeast towns (New York, Boston, Philly, Pittsburgh) while Hogan tried to conquer the world. Eventually, everyone figured out that David couldn't draw and Bruno didn't want to work any more. So, David got let go and his wrestling career more or less ended. And David - for whatever reason - blamed Bruno (who does not seem to be the cuddliest dad in the world. The dude lived in a cave in Italy for a few years while hiding from the Nazis after all).

So, Bruno was pissed at Vince about that. Then the steroids and drugs and sex scandals happened. Bruno is really old school so if you asked him about drugs or sex or steroids, he would tell you how awful they are and how Vince was a disgrace for letting it all happen.

The only thing that Bruno seems truly foolish about is his insistence that wrestling was "real" when he did it. But there's a few of the older guys who just can't let kayfabe go.

(There is actually a funny youtube clip of Vince and Bruno calling a match and joking about a woman in the audience named "Kay Faye." I can't access youtube at work so I can't post it).

That was a very good read.

---------- Post added February-6th-2013 at 11:03 AM ----------

Yeah I remember him strongly denouncing the "New Era" of wrestling, in numerous interviews years ago. Always came off really bitter.

I really don't like this new era of "wrestling/sports entertainment" either. We all know it's scripted, but at least make it look real.

[Heidenreich]

I really don't like this new era of "wrestling/sports entertainment" either. We all know it's scripted, but at least make it look real.

This. Back in the day, the intercontinental champion was the "#1 contender" to the title. He didn't get shots very often, but he was a threat.

Today? One belt matters. The WWE title.

The WHC is a joke, as Cena proved when he trashed it last week.

The intercontinental champion has lost 5 matches in a row, and the opponents don't even want the title on the line! That's the worst part. Hell, Monday night, Orton beat Cesaro and Ryback beat Barret. Neither title was on the line, because Orton and Ryback don't care about them. The only people that do are Santino Marella and the Miz? No wonder the fans don't care about them either......

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

This. Back in the day, the intercontinental champion was the "#1 contender" to the title. He didn't get shots very often, but he was a threat.

Today? One belt matters. The WWE title.

The WHC is a joke, as Cena proved when he trashed it last week.

The intercontinental champion has lost 5 matches in a row, and the opponents don't even want the title on the line! That's the worst part. Hell, Monday night, Orton beat Cesaro and Ryback beat Barret. Neither title was on the line, because Orton and Ryback don't care about them. The only people that do are Santino Marella and the Miz? No wonder the fans don't care about them either......

Every now and then, in the old days, some wrestler in a territory would go on a run where they ended up with two or three titles and they would come out and cut a promo with belts hanging all over them. That was always fun. I think one of the things that made the Horsemen so memorable was that there would be times when all of them held title belts. I'm fairly certain there was a moment when they had five titles because Tully was tv champion and either US or World Tag Champ with Arn.

The secondary titles were also an easy to establish someone's credibilty. But that was back when winning and losing mattered.

[KDawg]

I'll break it down like this RE: Midcard titles:

The WWE has done a phenomenal, if not better than that at times, job of building the WWE Title. Punk's reign and the loss to the legend was great booking. They branched off with other storylines like Maddox, The Shield, Heyman, Lesnar and now Cena. The top of the card is being represented very, very, well.

The WHC title, they're at least trying sometimes. Del Rio and Show have dominated TV time on both shows, and they've actually had some decent matches. The problem is, no one buys that the belt is legit. Even Cena when he buried it. But at least there is some kind of effort there.

The problem is that they don't care about any of the mid card titles. They don't provide enticing storylines. They don't create good feuds that carry on for years and eventually become the backbone of a world title feud. Remember when Rock/HHH were battling for the IC title? A few years later, they were rivals for the WWE title. Give the IC title a spotlight. Make it important. Further the WWE storyline whatever way you need to, but sometimes, make the highlight of the show that Intercontinental Title.

Don't keep having your champions lose. Build them up. Heels sometimes cheat to win, in order to not harm a faces solid run until a loss to the IC champion on RAW or Smackdown. Have heels win clean from time to time. Have faces win clean most of the time, but every once in awhile a tweener face can beat a heel with a taste of their own medicine.

Build. Spotlight.

Until the midcard titles get some real shine, there is no reason to think things will change.

This is a total 'Smark" comment, but, do what they're doing with the WHC title with the Intercontinental Title. Show/Del Rio would be VERY compelling as an IC title feud. And Cena wouldn't have buried it because the WHC title wouldn't exist. Get rid of it already.

[DM72]

Every now and then' date=' in the old days, some wrestler in a territory would go on a run where they ended up with two or three titles and they would come out and cut a promo with belts hanging all over them. That was always fun. I think one of the things that made the Horsemen so memorable was that there would be times when all of them held title belts. I'm fairly certain there was a moment when they had five titles because Tully was tv champion and either US or World Tag Champ with Arn.

The secondary titles were also an easy to establish someone's credibilty. But that was back when winning and losing mattered.[/quote']

Well said. Blanchard always seemed to have the National Heavyweight Title.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Well said. Blanchard always seemed to have the National Heavyweight Title.

I always thought that Tully and Dusty feuded over the TV belt.

Crockett was the original company with a glut of titles because of his stupid strategy of buying other territories instead of just letting them die. At one point, he had all the old Mid-Atlantic belts (US champ, US tag champs), the Georgia belts (National champ, National tag champs, TV champ), and I think the Florida titles as well. Then he bought Central States and had all those stupid titles. Then he bought UWF and had those titles to deal with. Eventually, they consolidated them all, but it took forever. I still think that the best system is 3 individual titles and two tag titles.

If I ran the WWE, I would be tempted to make my tertiary belt "The Missouri Title" because I always loved the name. I'm Harley Race and I'm the champion of Missoura.

I always though that if I was a Booker, a cheap and easy way to establish matches and generate feuds would be a weekly Top Ten. College Football games matter more when it's the #4 team versus the #8 team and those ranking are probably more fixed than made up pro wrestling rankings.

We are going on something like 15 years where it seems like all matches are decided by the authority figure in the ring at the top of the 8 o'clock hour. I've always wondered what would happen in storyline terms if no one came out to confront the authority figure. Would the show just end? "Sorry, folks. Vickie is not mad at anyone this week so no matches.....Drive safely."

You could still go to the old, because I am mad at you, you need to wrestle Kane tonight thing, but the rest of the card wouldn't be so arbitrary and the guys would seem to be fighting for a reason.

I honestly have no idea what the point is in beating Wade Barrett right now? Do you make money off it? Does it get you a title shot later? You obviously don't get the belt.

I don't want to apply too much logic to wrestling, because half the fun of wrestling is how illogical it is. (Someone once told me that you have to suspend your disbelief the second someone does an Irish Whip). But at the same time, there has to be a reason for all these guys to show up to all these arenas every week in tights.

The only common goal all the wrestlers have right now is to point at the Wrestlemania banner.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Lombardi's_kid_brother

[DM72]

You're absolutely right. I would love for TNA to adopt the old NWA model of bringing logic and realism to wrestling. But they sometimes get caught up with being a poor man's WWE. I used to love how the NWA sold that the winner gets more money and a title could change hands on any given night.

[CrypticVillain]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpvEbO6l29g

I don't know how people feel about Mark Henry, but I think this was fantastic. Yeah, Brock Lesnar, Ryback, and Big E Langston are powerful, but what seperates them and Mark Henry is the fact that Mark Henry seems to be a bit more brandish.

At the end of the attack he says "That's what I do. That's what I do." It was the perfect way to end that. Dude was money on Monday night. I would love to see him and Del Rio do a program for Wrestlemainia. None of the other people in the World Title picture intrigues me.

[KDawg]

LKB/anyone,

I don't watch much TNA, but how do you feel about the Bound for Glory tournament, or whatever its called. The winner gets a title shot I think...

I like the concept. WWE would do well to put a system like that into play, but make it for a WrestleMania match between the top two guys. Winner gets an automatic title shot at SummerSlam or Survivor Series. Much like Money in the Bank or Royal Rumble. Start it the day after WrestleMania and end it the week before. Put 8-10 guys in it. If an injury happens, add new talent if it's early enough... If not, just "eliminate" them.

You could even do a time limit. And make it hockey scoring or something:

2 points for a win.

0 points for a loss.

1 point for a tie.

It adds relevance to those 8-10 wrestlers matches. If one of the guys in the tournament captures the WWE title (or, if they insist on keeping the WHC) over the course of the year, they're out of the standings and replaced.

I think it would be a fun concept. You can even make it 16 guys or something.

Maybe have something like:

The day after WM: 24 competitors

The day after SummerSlam: 16 competitors (bottom 8 eliminated)

The day after Survivor Series: 12 competitors (bottom 4 eliminated)

The day after Royal Rumble: 8 competitors (bottom 4 eliminated)

The day after the last RAW prior to WM: 2 competitors

If someone gets hurt along the way, you take the next available guy that was in the standings to replace them.

[Heidenreich]

Mark Henry just has good theme music "Somebodys gonna get their ass kicked" etc, etc

Sometimes that's all it takes.

I think Mark Henry is going to be Cena's first opponent after Wrestlemania. They are kind of backed into a corner with the WHT since Ziggler has the Money in the Bank. They won't do heel/heel

Is anybody going to Wrestlemania?

[CrypticVillain]

LKB/anyone,

I don't watch much TNA, but how do you feel about the Bound for Glory tournament, or whatever its called. The winner gets a title shot I think...

Maybe have something like:

The day after WM: 24 competitors

The day after SummerSlam: 16 competitors (bottom 8 eliminated)

The day after Survivor Series: 12 competitors (bottom 4 eliminated)

The day after Royal Rumble: 8 competitors (bottom 4 eliminated)

The day after the last RAW prior to WM: 2 competitors

If someone gets hurt along the way, you take the next available guy that was in the standings to replace them.

Two things about that. First thing, since WWE didn't come up first, I doubt they would use the concept.

Secondly, let's say they did do that. Who would be your competitors and who would feud with the WWE champion during that time. I think you are running it too long. It should run from like June to August. Call it like the SummerSlam series. Money In The Bank happens during that time too, so it could add an extra element. Winner of MITB can trade his spot in the series for the briefcase.

That is a good idea though. I do enjoy the TNA Bound for Glory.

Mark Henry just has good theme music "Somebodys gonna get their ass kicked" etc, etc

Sometimes that's all it takes.

I think Mark Henry is going to be Cena's first opponent after Wrestlemania. They are kind of backed into a corner with the WHT since Ziggler has the Money in the Bank. They won't do heel/heel

Is anybody going to Wrestlemania?

I don't know if I can handle another Cena vs Mark Henry feud.

I am still thinking about going to Wrestlemania. This would probably be the closet it ever comes to Washington, DC. I do know I am going to the RAW before Wrestlemania at the Verizon Center.

[KDawg]

Two things about that. First thing, since WWE didn't come up first, I doubt they would use the concept.

They'd have to put their twist on it.

Secondly, let's say they did do that. Who would be your competitors and who would feud with the WWE champion during that time.

They could have people within the tournament feud with the champion. There's a lot of ways you could do it. Again, just because you're in the tournament doesn't mean you can't become hampion. Maybe even have a clause where, if you become the champ, the former champ takes on your standing in the tournament. Could add interesting elements... Such as:

Let's say CM Punk is champ. Ryback is in the tournament and doing well, so Punk, wanting to avoid Ryback at SummerSlam... screws Ryback over a few times. Shield involvement. Lesnar involvement. Heyman involvement. Whatever. Ryback drops to a very low placing, and on the brink of elimination due to the screw jobs. However, Vince isn't amused and announces that Punk will defend the WWE title at whatever PPV is next against Ryback.

Ryback wins and Punk is now in the tournament, but due to screwing Ryback he's on the brink of elimination.

Now he needs a win on the last possible date to make it into the next round... Ryback attempts to screw him... Does Punk win and make it to the next round? Or does Ryback succeed?

There's a ton of ways they can do it. All of which add elements to the story...

AS WELL as offering guys something to actually fight for. And, part of my rules would be: It doesn't matter if the wrestler that the tournament competitor faces is in the tournament or not. It effects the standings. It's something that gives extra weight to matches. Gives people a reason to care about matches. AND it can set up feuds with guys who aren't in the tournament.

I think you are running it too long. It should run from like June to August. Call it like the SummerSlam series. Money In The Bank happens during that time too, so it could add an extra element. Winner of MITB can trade his spot in the series for the briefcase.

Upon reflection, I think that it should run from the day after SummerSlam through the PPV prior to SummerSlam. The winner of the match at the PPV prior to SS gets a title shot at SS.

I like the MITB twist, too.

Edited February 7, 2013 by KDawg

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I don't really watch TNA so I don't know. From what I read about it, it seemed like it went on for too long.

In general, I love the idea of tournaments, but they never ever ever seem to work correctly. If you do them on one show, the show drags. If you do them over several shows, the storyline drags. And if the scoring system gets overly complicated, people start to tune it out. If someone could do a tourney and make it work, I would be the first to cheer it. I've never really seen one that works in and of itself - and this dates back to things like the Crockett Cup and Wrestlemania IV.

I will say this: the one thing that can happen is that a tourney can elevate a wrestler. Wrestelmania IV is the most boring card in the history of the universe. But Randy Savage left it a superstar. The 1996 King of the Ring is no joy to sit through. But Austin left it as a believable upper carder.

I just think there are easier ways to do it. Savage and Dibiase could have had a 5-star 30 minute match on a regular card that ended with Hogan coming out. A simple injury angle with Hogan could have gotten us to the same place without a Don Muraco-Dino Bravo match.

The whole point of King of the Ring was to get to the "Austin 3:16" punchline. There were a lot of ways to do that without having the tourney. Let's put it this way: Austin did not get over because beat an ancient Jake Roberts in a five-minute match. He got over because he said "Austin 3:16 just says I kicked your ass."

I appreciate work-rate but I'm probably more of an angle guy than anything else. And I think angles should be relatively simple and have the aim of getting a wrestler over. Tourneys tend to get a little complicated which can cause the wrestler you want to get over to get lost in the shuffle.

I may have said this before, but the two single greatest match concepts ever are The Royal Rumble and War Games. And the reason is that they are so simple that you can fully explain them to a non-fan in two sentences, yet you can do a thousand different things within the concept. They are also among the few matches where you can get someone over big time without actually have them win. They are also good in the sense that the wrestler you want to highlight is going to be on-screen for the majority of the time.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Lombardi's_kid_brother

[Mr. Sinister]

I think tournaments can be successful, if they are worked/scheduled properly, and the wrestlers take them seriously, and you feature wrestlers with different styles, and different levels of cache, so everybody kind of gets their profile heightened.

KOTR '96 was terrible, but there were a few really good ones in the late 90's and early '00s where a lot of guys ( many that were part of tag teams or stables) sort of put themselves on the map individually. I actually used to consider KOTR a top 5 PPV (the five I always ordered every year) before they scrapped it.

I think it also helps to have a storyline within a storyline, like a controversial decision, or a run in/swerve, where a good feud could get started between the two who don't get the belt.

[CrypticVillain]

I may have said this before' date=' but the two single greatest match concepts ever are The Royal Rumble and [b']War Games[/b].

I think that The Shield vs Ryback, Shaemus, and Cena will be inside the Elimination Chamber. Probably the closet WWE could get to War Games without adding the second ring.

---------- Post added February-7th-2013 at 10:51 AM ----------

KOTR '96 was terrible, but there were a few really good ones in the late 90's and early '00s where a lot of guys ( many that were part of tag teams or stables) sort of put themselves on the map individually. I actually used to consider KOTR a top 5 PPV (the five I always ordered every year) before they scrapped it.

I liked the way the WWE used KOTR to put Edge on the map. I also liked it when they created the King Booker Character. King Shamus sucked.....

[DM72]

This Is Why I Can't Stand Vince McMahon To This Day.

www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/272600

The WWE has done this for decades. Block other wrestling companies, namely WCW, from using certain arena's. I know the WWE have an exclusive compete clause at MSG. I have no idea how they can get away that. I'm no lawyer, but isn't that a forum of monopoly. Would Walmart have a legal right to prevent Target from building a store in a 10 mile radius? How can the WWE legally prevent another company from using an arena?

Edited February 7, 2013 by DM72

[KDawg]

I appreciate work-rate but I'm probably more of an angle guy than anything else. And I think angles should be relatively simple and have the aim of getting a wrestler over. Tourneys tend to get a little complicated which can cause the wrestler you want to get over to get lost in the shuffle.

Tournament is probably the wrong word. Perhaps "series" is better. Or something along those lines. And by making each match matter' date=' regardless of whether it's against someone in the series or not, it adds a ton of dynamics. Guys won't get lost in the shuffle. Many guys will be elevated due to more opportunity than they had before.

And it achieves what you mentioned earlier... A sense of belief that each match ACTUALLY means something. Like a purse/cash prize.

I may have said this before, but the two single greatest match concepts ever are The Royal Rumble and War Games. And the reason is that they are so simple that you can fully explain them to a non-fan in two sentences, yet you can do a thousand different things within the concept. They are also among the few matches where you can get someone over big time without actually have them win. They are also good in the sense that the wrestler you want to highlight is going to be on-screen for the majority of the time.

I completely agree. War Games was a great idea and its one that I actually wish WWE would adopt from WCW lore. Problem is, nowadays the teams would be so thrown together that it just becomes silly. Stables/friendships/alliances aren't anywhere near prevalent enough to put on an entire show using the concept. And the necessity of the second ring makes things awkward if you only use the set up for one or two War Games matches. But I did love War Games.

I think it also helps to have a storyline within a storyline, like a controversial decision, or a run in/swerve, where a good feud could get started between the two who don't get the belt.

This is the rub with the series. It gives a ton of extra dimensions. But there has to be creativity involved.

[Heidenreich]

This Is Why I Can't Stand Vince McMahon To This Day.

www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/272600

The WWE has done this for decades. Block other wrestling companies, namely WCW, from using certain arena's. I know the WWE have an exclusive compete clause at MSG. I have no idea how they can get away that. I'm no lawyer, but isn't that a forum of monopoly. Would Walmart have a legal right to prevent Target from building a store in a 10 mile radius? How can the WWE legally prevent another company from using an arena?

Its a solid business decision. Taking MSG out of the equation.

Let's say you're the Hartford Civic Center. The WWF comes to town twice a year for a house show, and periodically a TV taping. If you're really lucky, they'll bring you a PPV.

The WWE is an established brand, and can guarantee you the following gates:

House show- 10,000 tickets sold

TV taping- 15,000 tickets sold

PPV- sold out

A good gate for the Arena. All of a sudden the arena is going to run a TNA show that if they're lucky will sell 2000 tickets? THey wont take that chance if they know that the WWE won't be coming back if they do.

It's not illegal, it's just good business.

[f_trizzy]

LKB/anyone,

I don't watch much TNA, but how do you feel about the Bound for Glory tournament, or whatever its called. The winner gets a title shot I think...

Yeah the Bound For Glory Series started in early summer. It ran through September when they had the semifinals with the winner getting a title shot in October at the Bound For Glory PPV. Besides it being too long, my biggest gripe is that they take into account non-televised matches. So unless you find recaps of their house shows, you have no idea what's happening in the standings between editions of Impact. Just makes it harder to follow IMO.

[KDawg]

Yeah the Bound For Glory Series started in early summer. It ran through September when they had the semifinals with the winner getting a title shot in October at the Bound For Glory PPV. Besides it being too long, my biggest gripe is that they take into account non-televised matches. So unless you find recaps of their house shows, you have no idea what's happening in the standings between editions of Impact. Just makes it harder to follow IMO.

Yeah. I would have all matches occur on their major shows. RAW or Smackdown.

[Forehead]

I may have said this before' date=' but the two single greatest match concepts ever are The Royal Rumble and War Games. And the reason is that they are so simple that you can fully explain them to a non-fan in two sentences, yet you can do a thousand different things within the concept. They are also among the few matches where you can get someone over big time without actually have them win. They are also good in the sense that the wrestler you want to highlight is going to be on-screen for the majority of the time.[/quote']

The Royal Rumble has always been and will forever be my favorite match. I was a dedicted WWF fan back in the day, I almost never watched WCW and rarely ever watched their PPV's. But I did order War Games once, and I thought it was a pretty neat concept. It was the one with The Shockmaster, who I had never heard of, but would learn years later had one of the greatest (worst?) introductions in history.

[Gallen5862]

WWE can do like the old NWA use to do. The United States Champion was considered the number 1 contender for the NWA Heavyweight championship. The United States Champion can be the Number 1 contender for the Heavyweight Championship, the IIntercontental Champion could be the number 1 contender for the WWE Championship. The WWE could create a TV championship and make him the number 1 contender to the United States and Intercontinental Championship. In order to reset the WWE after Wrestlemainaia the WWE could have the new TV championship Belt along with all the other championships and the MITB briefcase put up in a Ladder match. Any current or former champion of any type belt could enter. The first person to climb the latter could grab any championship he wants or the MITB briefcase. The next person grabs a belt etc. The match continues until all of the titles and the money in the bank briefcase have been won. In order to make the Mitb briefcase more valuable it can be cashed on any of the belts at any time. After a briefcase has been cashed in it would automatically be put up for grabs in a ladder match. This would mean at all times all the title holders would have to be prepared for either their designated number 1 competitor or the MITB holder. After each years Wrestlemainia all the belts and the MITB briefcase would be up for grabs. The tag team championships or the divas and Womens Championship could have similar matches or continue to be defended as they are currently.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Gallen5862

[DM72]

Its a solid business decision. Taking MSG out of the equation.

Let's say you're the Hartford Civic Center. The WWF comes to town twice a year for a house show, and periodically a TV taping. If you're really lucky, they'll bring you a PPV.

The WWE is an established brand, and can guarantee you the following gates:

House show- 10,000 tickets sold

TV taping- 15,000 tickets sold

PPV- sold out

A good gate for the Arena. All of a sudden the arena is going to run a TNA show that if they're lucky will sell 2000 tickets? THey wont take that chance if they know that the WWE won't be coming back if they do.

It's not illegal, it's just good business.

Does it really matter all that much to the venue owner on how many tix are sold? Yeah, they get some of the tix money, but I would think the WWE and the tix distributor like tix master would get the lion's share of tix sales. I'm sure the venue owner would charge TNA just as much to rent their arena as they would the WWE. So I'm.not sure they'll make that much more for a WWE show than they would for a TNA show.

Already pulling strong arm tactics and changing their touring schedule, is the giant WWE really this scared of lil old TNA?