But that's why I don't like TNA, as I said in my first post in this thread, because they don't use their talent well in my opinion.
Let's be real here: this is not an exclusive TNA thing; there are plenty of wrestlers elsewhere who are not being "used right/well" (otherwise there would hardly be any posts in any wrestling forum) - but then, that's subjective. They've used Roode and Aries in particular very well, as champions and otherwise, and even people like Kaz and Daniels and Park, etc. For me, having a belt doesn't automatically = being used right (not saying that's what you meant, however), but for some people, it does. Some wrestlers don't need a title to be either a force to be reckoned with or someone you mark for. I think they use a lot of talent to their strengths
, though not all, but the ones that are not that, shall we say, important to the company (Knockouts & X-Division stars, apparently) are not featured as much and/or do not have full-on storylines or storylines at all.
I could mention how WWE uses their talent, but I'd rather not go into that. I'll just say that they are not at all immune to misuse, and there are several examples of that. As far as featuring the talent, there's something to be argued/agreed upon there; as far as leaving the restraints off and allowing them to develop their character compared to elsewhere, I would say they use them very well. I guess I comment because basing dislike for a promotion based on how the talent is used when talent is misused all over is kind of a moot point (though understandable at the same time). The big deal guys are made to seem a big deal, whether we agree they are or not. People who can talk get mic time; people who can wrestle get mat time; people who are more eye-candy get to flex or shake their assets. I want to say there are less occurrences of people being somewhere other than where they should be than elsewhere, but I'll have to think about that.
If they can stick it out, I think TNA should keep progressing slowly albeit steadily as they have been. I think they have the right idea, and they've already seen what would happen if they tried to take on a bigger fish far too soon. It's like a Faygo drink trying to take out Coca-Cola. Faygo has a lot to offer in terms of variety; there are many people who know it, but it's not comparable to the number of people who know/love Coke. They have established their drinkers, and with so much to offer they stand to gain new drinkers all the time. But it would be silly to try to take on a far larger, older, better known company unless they had some sure-fire marketing and Coke started to suck so badly that even the staunchest Coke drinkers gave it up. But given the incredible amount of influence and exposure Coke has, one might propose that would be impossible. Doesn't make Faygo any less tasty to the people who love/buy it.
More factors to it than that, but that's the silly analogy that popped into my head. Haven't drank a Faygo since I was a kid...