08 Predictions For Wrestling

[hizzle?]

I could've swore WWE targeted their programming towards males 18-34.

Me too. But no.

 

[Hituup]

And you should be thankful of that, because if he didn't he'd probably be in TNA.

Yeah and they'd probably strip him of that stupid gimmick and make him worth something. He'd probably be used better in one day in TNA than in his entire WWE run and would probably be made to be worth a damn like how TNA has done with Christian, Tomko, Gail Kim, and is currently doing with Matt Morgan.

Turning Point 2007 - Opening match, lost
Genesis 2007 - On second, won
Bound For Glory 2007 - Not on the show
No Surrender 2007 - Lost in a gauntlet match
Victory Road 2007 - Midcard, beat Jerry Lynn and Bob Backlund
Slammiversary 2007 - Sabin lost to Lethal, Shelley lost to Bob motherfucking Backlund
Hard Justice 2007 - Opening match, lost

First of all, MCMG were barely developed as a team in May around the time of Slammiversary. Not on Bound For Glory?? WTF? You don't even know what you're talking about. They were in the fight for the right battle royal and were a major part in eliminating Fatu.
-Were the last 2 guys in the gauntlet match with AJ & Tomko for a shot at the tag team titles, where they put on a great showing.
-Got victories over a team of 2 veterans over Backlund and Jerry Lynn at Victory Road.
-Got a clean win over Team 3D at Genesis.
-MCMG were in an opening match with Letal at Turning Point in a tables match with Team 3D and Johnny Devine in a tables match, where Team 3D stole a victory. MCMG didn't win the match but they didn't get pinned or were made to look weak. Another reach from U!
Hard Justice-Were in a 3 way tag match. Was not pinned to get a loss. Another reach from U!

-I find it funny that you didn't say anything about the recent Impacts where MCMG won the tag team ranking gauntlets to be ranked the #1 tag team in TNA some weeks ago.
-I find it funny how you mention nothing about MCMG getting a clean pin over Styles and Tomko in a nontitle match from Impact on the last Impact of 07.
-I find it funny how you mentioned nothing about MCMG pulling off a clean victory over XXX this week on Impact.

Now compare all of MCMG's victories and count the actual matches where they were pinned along with the pops they get, along with the matches they put on, along with their overall crowd reactions, and compare that to London and Kendrick's and see if they are on equal footing.

You are like so in denial and are in such a desperate mode to drag TNA in the mudhole with the E. The more you respond, the more it shows.

Go back and watch the PPVs from Sacrifice onwards. On the same show Alex Shelley jobbed to Bob Backlund, Rick Steiner was in a Tag Team Title match. When the Machine Guns jobbed in the opener of Hard Justice, Rick Steiner was beating Team 3D further up the card. At Bound For Glory, a show the Machine Guns weren't even booked on, the Steiners beat Team 3D again, and they got another Tag Team Title shot at Genesis.

Let me refresh your memory as you dig a whole. First of all, the Machine Gunz did not job in the 3 way tag match at Hard Justice. Sonjay Dutt had rather jobbed to XXX. MCMG did not get pinned, so they didn't do the job. Learn what the term JOB means.

Here goes another exposure showing that you either have selective eyesight or don't watch TNA proving me right. Go rewatch Bound For Glory's "Fight For The Right" battle royal and tell me MCMG wasn't among the last and only guys remaining among the final guys in the battle royal.

And incase you forgot, it was the MCMG that caused Team 3D their match at Bound For Glory for the Steiner Bros. to pick up the victory leading up to the current feud between 3D and the MCMG.

Another failed attempt by U! Try watching TNA so you can at least sound valid in a debate. Maybe you'll be taken more seriously in this 1 sided debate.

When did I say Hornswoggle was a good choice for the role? I'll save you some time, I didn't say that. If you knew anything about the situation, you'd know that Hornswoggle was a last minute replacement because the guy they wanted to use got suspended. Go back and watch the show where Hornswoggle was revealed as Vince's son. You think Charlie Haas would have got that reaction? No, nobody would have given a shit about him. It would have done him no good whatsoever.

So what good is putting Hornswoggle in that role? For 1 night Shock Value?? We're talking long term value and about the results of what it could do for someone's career like Haas. You know how much of a boost that Hornswoggle's push could've done for an active wrestler. It's bad enough the Vince Bastard angle is stupid. It's even worse that there choice of guy is even worse than the angle itself. This is just another case of the E continuing to do the most blatant stupidest shit. Hornswoggle=a shove down people's throats. All the WWE does is give wrong peoploe the wrong fucking push.

TNA have a two hour TV show, they brag about getting a million viewers, yet only 15,000 of those are compelled enough to buy the PPV? That's a pitiful buy rate, nothing you can say will justify that.

So! TNA got an ESTIMATE of 15,000 buyrates once. It doesn't mean TNA is going anywhere. TNA is backed by a big financial company. They have tons of money. And no one is expecting over hundreds of thousands of buyrates from TNA at this stage in the game. You're comparing them to a fucking mainstream company with years of establishment for crying out loud and even there buyrates aren't that great in comparison to their total amount of viewers that tune in each week.

Don't even think about calling yourself a real wrestling fan. Take a look at the Torch, because they're willing to actually criticise TNA when it deserves it (and it deserves it a lot), instead of just turning a blind eye to them, and recycling the same shit about "oh, they're a young company, they'll get better". They'd had six years, they haven't got any better.

How would you know if TNA has gotten better or not? You just proved to me with all the inaccurate information about TNA and the MCMG from above that you don't even watch the product.

Like I said, the same old shit. You'll still be saying this in six years, if TNA is still around.

No I won't because in six years when TNA is whooping the E's ass in every department, they'll be no need for TNA to have excuses. Instead I'll watch as you continue to defend the E as McMahon will be feuding with his 6-7 year old granddaughter who will be fighting to become the first ever girl world champion as HHH will continue to use his backstage political stroke to push his daughter to the moon.

I was talking about the booking, genius. Vince Russo, Mike Tenay, Dutch Mantell, Jeff Jarrett and Jim Cornette have all been in wrestling long enough to know how to a book a show properly, yet they can't.

You do realize that there's more to a tv programming process then booking and creative right? Maybe you should take some classes and learn the process that goes with creating a television show because you don't realize that preparation for a show doesn't strictly go on booking and creative, right? And that's proof even with a established company like the E that can't even make good storylines, make good personas, or find angles for guys to get on tv despite having teams of writers. Because if it was so easy, I'm sure every other Indy promotion would be on tv producing the 5 star "alternative" program you're looking for within a week of a tv debut.

I've never claimed that WWE doesn't put on bad shows. They do, but they put out enough good content to make up for it. TNA don't, and you don't seem willing to accept that.

No WWE puts on trash shows. Unforgiven and Judgement Day are candidates for worst PPV of 2007. As many mistakes that TNA makes along with this bad booking bandwagon nonsense that you keep dragging, TNA has never put on a notoriously bad PPV or barely puts on weak Impacts. WWE puts on an average of 2-3 garbage Raw programs within a month, no matter how high you hold them or their booking and creative team.

I don't think you know what putting someone "over" means. Someone beating Black Reign means nothing, because nobody gives a shit about Black Reign. At least Duggan gets an ironic/nostalgic pop from the crowd.

They'd only care about him if he became a faggot again dressed in gold glitter back in a WWE ring again, correct? Then the victory would mean something, right? No matter, what attire or name Dustin Rhodes is under, the fact is that he's still an accomplished superstar. No one really cares about Holly either, but does it mean that if an underestablished guy got a pin over him, it'll mean nothing?

 

[Hituup]

Look at the PPV buy rates since those are the numbers that matter. Look at how many more buys TNA got when they switched to Spike. In fact, I'll save you the time:

"TNA currently airs for two-hours on Spike TV which is available in 87 million homes. Prior to Spike, TNA aired sporadically on FSN which has a hell of a lot less availability. When TNA was airing on FSN they were drawing an average of 6,000 buys per show. In the big picture, a peak increase of 30,000 buys coming from FSN to Spike is a result of bad booking and nothing else."
That's a PEAK increase of 30,000 buys. Victory Road drew 15,000 buys.

That 15,000 is only an estimate. And no one is expecting TNA to do super buyrates. For the ratings TNA receives weekly, their buyrates match. WWE has about 5 million viewers for Raw but yet only 300,000 people ordered summerslam. If you do the math, that portion is about the same as TNA's 1.4 million viewers to their average of about 25-30,000 buys per pay per view. So it's about the same percentage wise.

They've been said before because they're all true. And I think you know they are, because you don't seem to be debating any of them. And I don't think you can talk about cliches, when you're argument seems to be "Vince is on TV too much".

The difference between me and you is that I speak from the heart. You recycle some bullshit that you read from other people's columns that you hold in such high regard. You're basically a pawn. And not only that, you're a pawn with inaccuracies as you proved with some of your posts from above. This is why I can't take you too seriously because you don't have a mind of your own.

Why does it not surprise me that a TNA fan is a spot junkie? What you just talked about it called psychology. Real wrestling fans consider it to be pretty important.

Psychology is important. But I'm not a psychology junkie as you seem to be. The E follows that same old format of the heel doing a number of headlocks, kicks to the head, chinlocks, while the face continues to sell a move for more than half a match. All of that takes place up until the point of about the last 10 minutes where the face finally gets some offense in and cause a little back and forth action to take place, where signature moves are done, and that's the formula. That's WWE action for you. I consider that psychology action as redundant and boring.

I respect ROH psychology, where guys don't have to sell a single move for more than half a match and are actually competing in title matches and making their match and or title match look like the most important thing in the world by continually performing and making the belt their competing for seem like a real grand prize. That's the type of psychology I respect. I don't respect the old school redundant psychology of guys sleeping and pretending to play dead in a match. Wrestling is to entertain and those matches aren't entertaining. In fact, they are sleepers, bathroom breaks, and make people change the channel.

What push? You're acting as if Hornswoggle's getting title matches and squashing young, up-and-coming stars.

Wait for it. Didn't this guy get a pin over Mark Henry? Didn't he pin Jamie Noble like 3 times? Wasn't he the last cruiserweight champion? I wouldn't be surprised if he became the second McMahon and the first midget/leprauchan to win the Royal Rumble! Hell with the way Hornswoggle is being built and shoved down people's throats, I wouldn't be surprised if he became the first Leprauchan WWE champion.

I know it is, and it's a joke. A woman hits a woman in the head with a steel chair, no problems. She's a face, we don't find anything wrong with that. A man lays his hands on a woman, and it's worse than the Holocaust.

Why would there be a problem? A woman on woman is equal. And if a match is hardcore match, then what's the problem with a small women continously hitting a large woman that has been built strong with a chair over and over in a competitve match for a title. And please don't act as if the E doesn't do the same thing. It's an unwritten rule in the E as well about putting your hands on a woman.

I'm happy to admit that WWE does some stupid stuff. I'm just trying to get you to open your eyes, take TNA off it's pedestal and realise that it's no better than WWE. In fact, in my opinion, it's considerably worse.

I haven't put TNA on a pedestal. I'm telling you flat out that TNA is producing better programming than the E. Maybe if you tried watching the product weekly and actually followed it as you do the E, you'd see that.

There are no excuses for the simple, rudimentary booking mistakes that TNA makes. You can't blame it on lack of experience, or lack of time, or anything else. Don't let your blind hatred of WWE fool you into thinking TNA is putting out a great product, because it's not. With the talent they have, they should be doing far better.

And with the talent that has passed through the E and been misused since the deaths of the original ECW and WCW, they should be the superultimate promotion of the world but they continue to fumble. They misused Lance Storm, Christian Cage, Jazz, Mike Awesome, Rhyno, Sean O' Haire, fumbled with the nWo, Sabu, RVD, made Steiner a joke, fumbled with Goldberg, didn't do anything with Cor Von, got rid of Molly Holly and Gail Kim but yet they hire bitches who can't wrestle, push crap guys like Cena down our throats, and push midgets. Look what they did with ECW. They bring back ECW for it to be another WWE brand, they pay Heyman to stay at home when he has more brains than the entire WWE staff. Then after that they turn it into a joke with Doo-Rag McMahon becoming the champion in a long drawn out feud with Lashley, and has now turned ECW into Tuesday Night Heat.

I don't hate the E. I hate how you are ignoring the obvious and trying to drag TNA in the mud with the E based on minor things that you're trying to be a scope on. The minor mistakes that TNA makes are no where near the attrocities that the WWE continue to make. You don't have to like TNA, but you can at least admt and give them the respect they are due because for a 5 year promotion going on 6 years they've gone a long way and continually to make leaps and vast improvements. For you to even sit here and make an arguement for the E against TNA is enough of an embarrassment for the E. With how established the E is, TNA should not even be in a conversation with the E. That alone just shows that TNA is doing something right if they are being compared to the E with just 3 years of national tv. The fact that this conversation is taking place is enough of a disgrace for the E. The WWE needs to step it up. They should be the ultimate promotion of the world but instead they produce shit like bastard angles, pregnant hands, necrophilia, and deaths. That's not entertaining, it's fucking stupid. Point blank!

 

[Illuminattile]

Yeah and they'd probably strip him of that stupid gimmick and make him worth something. He'd probably be used better in one day in TNA than in his entire WWE run and would probably be made to be worth a damn like how TNA has done with Christian, Tomko, Gail Kim, and is currently doing with Matt Morgan.

No, they'd probably stick him in a Monster's Ball match with all the other over gimmicked "monsters" on the roster that nobody cares about.

Not on Bound For Glory?? WTF? You don't even know what you're talking about. They were in the fight for the right battle royal and were a major part in eliminating Fatu.

We're talking about them as a tag team, not as singles competitors. It's not exactly good booking to put "the most over tag team in TNA" in a battle royale with a bunch of nobodies. Especially when the match was one of the worst ideas I've ever seen. And it was won by Eric Young.

-MCMG were in an opening match with Letal at Turning Point in a tables match with Team 3D and Johnny Devine in a tables match, where Team 3D stole a victory. MCMG didn't win the match but they didn't get pinned or were made to look weak. Another reach from U!

How is that a reach? I said they were curtain jerking, which they were. Wouldn't you have put TNA's most over tag team higher up the card? Say, ahead of Eric Young vs. James Storm, or the dreadful Abyss match?

Hard Justice-Were in a 3 way tag match. Was not pinned to get a loss. Another reach from U!

Again, first on the card. How can you consider that a push, when they're wrestling first on the card and not winning (regardless of whether or not they take the fall)?

Go rewatch Bound For Glory's "Fight For The Right" battle royal

You couldn't pay me enough.

So what good is putting Hornswoggle in that role? For 1 night Shock Value??

Precisely. They had it all planned out for Kennedy, that didn't work so they just went for a cheap laugh from the fans. They might have dragged it out too long, but it has given Finlay a boost.

So! TNA got an ESTIMATE of 15,000 buyrates once. It doesn't mean TNA is going anywhere. TNA is backed by a big financial company. They have tons of money.

They might have tons of money, but how long are they going to support something which is losing them money, and has been for six years?

And no one is expecting over hundreds of thousands of buyrates from TNA at this stage in the game. You're comparing them to a fucking mainstream company with years of establishment for crying out loud and even there buyrates aren't that great in comparison to their total amount of viewers that tune in each week.

I'm not expecting them to get WWE buyrates, but when they brag about having a million viewers and then pull in 15,000 buys for a PPV, even you have to admit that something's wrong.

No I won't because in six years when TNA is whooping the E's ass in every department, they'll be no need for TNA to have excuses.

:laugh:

Not going to happen.

Instead I'll watch as you continue to defend the E as McMahon will be feuding with his 6-7 year old granddaughter who will be fighting to become the first ever girl world champion as HHH will continue to use his backstage political stroke to push his daughter to the moon.

Wow, that's original.

You do realize that there's more to a tv programming process then booking and creative right?[/quote]
But we're talking specifically about booking and creative. We have been for the entire thread.

No WWE puts on trash shows. Unforgiven and Judgement Day are candidates for worst PPV of 2007. As many mistakes that TNA makes along with this bad booking bandwagon nonsense that you keep dragging

TNA has never put on a notoriously bad PPV

Are you fucking kidding me? Turning Point was awful. How TNA can put out a PPV in which the X Division, Tag Team AND World titles are not defended is beyond me. The only title match they did have ended in a DQ, the "Feast or Fired" match was a complete mess, one of the main eventers didn't even show up and was replaced by Eric Young. None of the matches on the show were memorable, and the only "highlight" was Joe's semi-shoot before the main event.

They'd only care about him if he became a faggot again dressed in gold glitter back in a WWE ring again, correct? Then the victory would mean something, right? No matter, what attire or name Dustin Rhodes is under, the fact is that he's still an accomplished superstar. No one really cares about Holly either, but does it mean that if an underestablished guy got a pin over him, it'll mean nothing?

I was never a big fan of Goldust, but at least it was somewhat original. And back then he was in good shape, unlike now.
And I don't think Hardcore Holly's done much for Cody Rhodes, no, but at least Hardcore has a reasonable gimmick. He's put over as a tough guy, whereas Black Reign is put over as a freak with a rat.

WWE has about 5 million viewers for Raw

RAW gets about 3.5 million viewers each week.

but yet only 300,000 people ordered summerslam. If you do the math, that portion is about the same as TNA's 1.4 million viewers to their average of about 25-30,000 buys per pay per view. So it's about the same percentage wise.

No, it's not. 300,000 buys from 3.5 million viewers is about eight-and-a-half percent. 25,000 buys out of 1.4 million viewers is less than two percent. Now obviously, WWE has SmackDown! and ECW to promote its shows too, and they're better at marketing, but if you can't convince TWO PERCENT of viewers to order the PPV, you're doing something wrong. That's a fact.

The difference between me and you is that I speak from the heart. You recycle some bullshit that you read from other people's columns that you hold in such high regard. You're basically a pawn. And not only that, you're a pawn with inaccuracies as you proved with some of your posts from above. This is why I can't take you too seriously because you don't have a mind of your own.

That's funny, coming from a guy whose argument is basically "Vince McMahon is on TV too much, Hornswoggle is stoopid, Triple H's daughter will be World Champion..." etc. etc.

With how established the E is, TNA should not even be in a conversation with the E. That alone just shows that TNA is doing something right if they are being compared to the E with just 3 years of national tv.

But they're not. TNA is competing with ECW, yet can't get anywhere near the 90,000 buys that the worst PPV in recent memory, December 2 Dismember, got in 2006. 90,000 buys, which was considered such a failure that Vince pulled the plug on ECW PPVs.

I honestly wish TNA was as good as you think it is, because then there might be some competition. But it's not, and that's why people don't buy the PPVs. It doesn't matter how big the company is, how much money it can spend on marketing etc. etc. If you have 1.4 million people watching a show, and 98% of them don't enjoy it enough to order the pay-per-view, then you're not booking the shows well enough. You might think iMPACT is great every week, but obviously you're in a very small minority.

 

[Hituup]

No, they'd probably stick him in a Monster's Ball match with all the other over gimmicked "monsters" on the roster that nobody cares about.

At least that wouldn't be as painful as him staying in the E, where the coked up Hollywood writers would write him in as Hornswoggle's brother from another mother who has come to scare off Vince for mistreating his little brother, where big brother Boogey would be scaring off opponents from Hornswoggle until Hornswoggle becomes World Champion.

We're talking about them as a tag team, not as singles competitors. It's not exactly good booking to put "the most over tag team in TNA" in a battle royale with a bunch of nobodies. Especially when the match was one of the worst ideas I've ever seen. And it was won by Eric Young.

How would you know? You said they weren't even on the PPV.

How is that a reach? I said they were curtain jerking, which they were. Wouldn't you have put TNA's most over tag team higher up the card? Say, ahead of Eric Young vs. James Storm, or the dreadful Abyss match?

Again, first on the card. How can you consider that a push, when they're wrestling first on the card and not winning (regardless of whether or not they take the fall)?

First of all, match order barely means shit. MITB kicked off of WrestleMania with some of the best talent in the E with Randy Orton, Jeff Hardy, Matt Hardy, Edge, Booker T, Mr. Kennedy, and Fit Finlay. I guess that means that all those guys were over for curtain jerking, according to you, correct? Monday Night Raw has kicked off with an Edge/Randy Orton match with a dreadful Cade & Murdoch match following up. It's called booking a show to set up a tone for the rest of the show. Hint, why Bound 4 Glory kicked off with an Ultimate X match. Hint, why most of Team 3D/LAX matches kicked off most of the TNA ppvs from 07. Didn't MVP/Rey Mysterio open up Armageddon for the U.S. title? Didn't Eddie Guerrero and Rey Mysterio open up WrestleMania a few years ago? Part of good booking is to kick off a show's lineup with guys who are over and can set up a tone for a good show. I guess you don't know as much about booking as you think you do, genious.

You couldn't pay me enough.

I couldn't pay you enough to watch a PPV that had more quality than anything the E had to offer this year? That means Bill Gates and Oprah's money combined couldn't pay you to watch a WWE ppv because not one ppv from the E this year can match up to Bound For Glory in terms of quality. Not even WrestleMania, which was weak this year in comparison to past WrestleManias.

Precisely. They had it all planned out for Kennedy, that didn't work so they just went for a cheap laugh from the fans. They might have dragged it out too long, but it has given Finlay a boost.

It hasn't given Finlay shit. Just cause he had camera time with Vince once or twice doesn't mean shit. Finlay's still in the same position as he was about a year ago. He hasn't been in any real storylines or had any titleshots. Stop defending! The storyline is sht!

They might have tons of money, but how long are they going to support something which is losing them money, and has been for six years?

Sure TNA is losing money. That's why they're able to afford Sting, Booker T, Kurt Angle, have negotiations with Jericho, and Brock Lesnar and other high profile superstars. TNA is really going in debt.

I'm not expecting them to get WWE buyrates, but when they brag about having a million viewers and then pull in 15,000 buys for a PPV, even you have to admit that something's wrong.

They had only an ESTIMATE! U know what an estimate is? And that ESTIMATE was only for the Victory Road PPV which was one of TNA's more weaker or less cared about lineup cards. But on the average, TNA pulls in an average of about 25-30,000 buys on average for a PPV, so there you go. Stop trying to spread misinformation and only spreading half the truth.

:laugh:

Not going to happen.

That's probably what some mark about the E said in 1992 about WCW. Turn to WCW 4-6 years later, the WCW was whooping the WWF's ass and could've probably taken them out of business. Stop thinking the E is untouchable! When you produce garbage weekly programming, people will be bound to get fed up!

Wow, that's original.

Sure is. Isn't it. I wish I could say the same for the E but they're too redundant.

But we're talking specifically about booking and creative. We have been for the entire thread.

NO! We were not specifically talking about booking. I was originally talking about TNA having a lack of inexperience RUNNING and PUTTING TOGETHER A SHOW. You turned it into booking, where I responded with a reply saying that there's more to running a tv show then booking and creative. The whole point I was trying to make is that with all the mistakes TNA are making now whether you feel it's booking or creative, it's a trial and error process. Not everyone working with the company can put all there focus on one thing because they have to do more than their usual job to keep the keep the show and company going. Whether you want to admit it or not, TNA tries their best to please the fans and put out the best product out as possible, whether you believe it or not. With time, will come more experience on how to run the show. And with that will become a better product. The only way you can learn is from mistakes. And right now, what's not killing them will make them stronger.

 

[Hituup]

Are you fucking kidding me? Turning Point was awful. How TNA can put out a PPV in which the X Division, Tag Team AND World titles are not defended is beyond me. The only title match they did have ended in a DQ, the "Feast or Fired" match was a complete mess, one of the main eventers didn't even show up and was replaced by Eric Young. None of the matches on the show were memorable, and the only "highlight" was Joe's semi-shoot before the main event.

Turning Point was one of TNA's weaker PPV's but that didn't compare to the attrocity of Judgement Day or Unforgiven, especially Unforgiven which was unforgiveable. Gail Kim/Awesome Kong, The opening tables match with MCMG/Machismo against 3D/Devine that you were talking about earlier (but yet you claim isn't memorable) was worth anything more than those garbage ass PPV's from the E that I named above. Those PPVs were so bad that it automatically erased from your memory. You can't even remember it because of how horrid it was.

And talk about bad booking and lineup, you had the ECW quackmire title match defended in a handicap match with Lashley taking on Umaga/Vince/Shane, where Lashley literally won the match within like 3 minutes only for Vince to come down to the ring and screw him out of his ECW title and say that Lashley didn't win the match because he Vince McMahon/ECW titleholder was not yet in the ring at the time Lashley got the pin. And worse, that ECW title match took place before a regular CM Punk/Elijah Burke match where the crowd was dead for that match. The only match worth watching was Punk/Burke. The rest of the PPV took a nose dive and the rest of the lineup isn't even worth mentioning. Cena/Khali fucking headlined the PPV for crying out loud. Talk about garbage. I'm not even going to get into Unforgiven and some of the other candidates from the E for trash PPV of the year. Talk about bad booking! Look at yourself/WWE pal.

I was never a big fan of Goldust, but at least it was somewhat original. And back then he was in good shape, unlike now.
And I don't think Hardcore Holly's done much for Cody Rhodes, no, but at least Hardcore has a reasonable gimmick. He's put over as a tough guy, whereas Black Reign is put over as a freak with a rat.

Just because he was in shape didn't make the gimmick anymore better. The only difference now is that he's a more overweight freak wearing black with a rat, whereas in the E, he was a draq queen behaving homosexual wearing gold silver attire rolling around gold glitter. Same shit! Dustin Rhodes will always be linked to stupid gimmicks. I see no difference in him being Black Reign or Goldust.

RAW gets about 3.5 million viewers each week.

No Raw's usual rating is a 3.5-4.0. That translates to 5 million viewers if not mistaken.

No, it's not. 300,000 buys from 3.5 million viewers is about eight-and-a-half percent. 25,000 buys out of 1.4 million viewers is less than two percent. Now obviously, WWE has SmackDown! and ECW to promote its shows too, and they're better at marketing, but if you can't convince TWO PERCENT of viewers to order the PPV, you're doing something wrong. That's a fact.

Stop trying to switch shit around. The E has 4-5 million viewers. Getting 300,000 viewers for one of your biggest PPVs out of that bunch is not all that great either. (Note: wWE does less than 300,000 for most of their PPVs.) For only 8 percent of your viewers to order your PPV with the amount of expertise in marketing, the amount of tv time, the amount of exposure, and the amount of traveling, that is weak. TNA can be doing weak numbers for a number of reasons and the main one can be due to TNA's atmosphere of mostly performing in the Impact Zone, which plenty of people are tired of seeing.

That's funny, coming from a guy whose argument is basically "Vince McMahon is on TV too much, Hornswoggle is stoopid, Triple H's daughter will be World Champion..." etc. etc.

What I'm spitting is TRUTH from my own fucking observations. You're whole argument on TNA is nothing but things you've plagiarized from columns you read, thus proving you can't think for yourself.

But they're not. TNA is competing with ECW, yet can't get anywhere near the 90,000 buys that the worst PPV in recent memory, December 2 Dismember, got in 2006. 90,000 buys, which was considered such a failure that Vince pulled the plug on ECW PPVs.

You ask yourself this question: What the fuck is ECW? Is ECW not a WWE brand? Is ECW not under the WWE umbrella? Is WWE not one of the biggest marketing machines in America or in the whole world? Are you comparing this same brand of ECW to TNA? ECW has fucking ads during Raw for crying out loud! Back then, I think ECW was receiving like 2.0-3.0 ratings still. For them to pull off that number is a huge failure under the E's brand.

I honestly wish TNA was as good as you think it is, because then there might be some competition. But it's not, and that's why people don't buy the PPVs. It doesn't matter how big the company is, how much money it can spend on marketing etc. etc. If you have 1.4 million people watching a show, and 98% of them don't enjoy it enough to order the pay-per-view, then you're not booking the shows well enough. You might think iMPACT is great every week, but obviously you're in a very small minority.

How do you figure 98% of people don't enjoy it enough to order the PPV? You do realize that TNA maintains a consistent viewership, right? You do realize that the same people that watch Impact every week comeback and watch it week after week, right? Once again you're comparing TNA to the E. 1.4 million people tune in to watch TNA. Take a look at TNA's demographic of their 1.4 million viewers and compare that to the E's large demographic of 4-5 million viewers a week. You ask yourself about the people that attend WWE shows and about the people the WWE markets to and then ask yourself who TNA's audience is and then you answer the question as to why WWE gets better buyrates than TNA. And don't give me the answer that WWE has better booking and better creative because that would be a flat out lie! I want a real answer. And if you don't know, I'll tell you.

 

[Get In The Van I Have Candy]

Both of you fuckers have to much time in your hands. I would reply to Ill's comments when he quoted me, but I am afraid he will reply with an essay.

 

[Illuminattile]

We can argue all day about whether Bound For Glory was better than WrestleMania (it wasn't, IMO) or whether Turning Point was better than Vengeance (nope) and Unforgiven (yep). That doesn't matter. What matters is your inability to see that TNA's booking is, on the whole, not good. The buyrates prove that.

No Raw's usual rating is a 3.5-4.0. That translates to 5 million viewers if not mistaken.

You're mistaken, on both accounts.

RAW averaged a 3.2 in December, which is also what it got last week. The average over a longer period is probably around 3.5. They struggle to break 4.0 regularly these days.

One ratings point is about 1.128 million households. 3.2 * 1.128 = 3.6 million viewers. 1.4 * 1.128 = 1.6 million viewers.

Stop trying to switch shit around. The E has 4-5 million viewers. Getting 300,000 viewers for one of your biggest PPVs out of that bunch is not all that great either. (Note: wWE does less than 300,000 for most of their PPVs.) For only 8 percent of your viewers to order your PPV with the amount of expertise in marketing, the amount of tv time, the amount of exposure, and the amount of traveling, that is weak.

No, it's not good. But it's still better than TNA has ever achieved. The fact is, 8 percent of RAW viewers were willing to pay to watch a PPV, whereas only 2 percent of iMPACT viewers are willing to do the same. If 8 percent is "not all that great", what's 2 percent?

TNA can be doing weak numbers for a number of reasons and the main one can be due to TNA's atmosphere of mostly performing in the Impact Zone, which plenty of people are tired of seeing.

Are you blaming TNA's low buyrates on the decor? :laugh:

You ask yourself this question: What the fuck is ECW? Is ECW not a WWE brand? Is ECW not under the WWE umbrella? Is WWE not one of the biggest marketing machines in America or in the whole world? Are you comparing this same brand of ECW to TNA? ECW has fucking ads during Raw for crying out loud! Back then, I think ECW was receiving like 2.0-3.0 ratings still. For them to pull off that number is a huge failure under the E's brand.

We're not talking about getting people to watch the TV shows. We're talking about getting the people who do watch the TV shows to order the PPVs. That's what the wrestling business is all about.

You're talking about ads? What do you think iMPACT is? It's a two-hour commercial for the PPVs. That is it's function. TV ads get people to watch the TV shows, TV shows get people to watch the PPVs, PPVs make the company money. You can spend millions on marketing, you can get 50 million people watching iMPACT every week, but the only thing that will convince people to buy the PPVs is the product. The product is what sells the PPVs, not the TV ads. The TNA product is the marketing. And it's ineffective marketing, because only 2% of the people that see it are convinced by it.

How do you figure 98% of people don't enjoy it enough to order the PPV?

I thought the numbers were pretty self-explanatory. 1.6 million people watch iMPACT, 2% of them buy the PPV.

You do realize that TNA maintains a consistent viewership, right? You do realize that the same people that watch Impact every week comeback and watch it week after week, right?

And you do realise that those people mean fuck all to TNA if they don't buy the PPVs, right? It's easy to get people to watch iMPACT. The show is free, people will watch it even if it's not that good. TNA's problem is, they have a "consistent viewership" that watch iMPACT and then don't buy the PPVs. For TNA to break even, let alone make a profit, that "consistent viewership" need to start spending $30 or $40 a month to watch the big shows.

Once again you're comparing TNA to the E. 1.4 million people tune in to watch TNA. Take a look at TNA's demographic of their 1.4 million viewers and compare that to the E's large demographic of 4-5 million viewers a week. You ask yourself about the people that attend WWE shows and about the people the WWE markets to and then ask yourself who TNA's audience is and then you answer the question as to why WWE gets better buyrates than TNA. And don't give me the answer that WWE has better booking and better creative because that would be a flat out lie! I want a real answer. And if you don't know, I'll tell you.

I've explained to you how buy rates work, what don't you understand? People buy PPVs if they value the product enough to pay $30, $40, $50 to watch it.

Don't try to spin this any other way, the buyrates are low because the product isn't good enough. It's the same reason December 2 Dismember to 90,000 buys; nobody cared about the show. Don't try and pretend that there's some other barrier, that there's something else stopping TNA from getting decent buyrates.

Genesis 2006 got about 60,000 buys for TNA. That's a pretty good figure. Why did it get 60,000 buys? Because it was well booked. It was the first showdown between Angle and Joe, Cage and Styles put on a great match, Sting and Abyss put on a very good match too. They were built up well, and the fans shelled out to see the PPV.

In July 2006, 60,000 people pay to see a TNA PPV. Eight months later, 45,000 of them aren't prepared to pay to watch Victory Road. A 75% drop. Why do you think that might be?

 

[hizzle?]

^I read one post by each one...

 

[Hituup]

We can argue all day about whether Bound For Glory was better than WrestleMania (it wasn't, IMO)

Of course you'd think that. You've proven to be a WWE mark throughout. You're suppose to think like that. No matter how weak you felt the Fight For The Right Battle was, it didn't compare to the horrid Kane/Khali match. And nothing on Bound For Glory was near the garbage of the Divas matched that was booked higher on the card than the World Title right before the Main Event championship.

What matters is your inability to see that TNA's booking is, on the whole, not good. The buyrates prove that.

And what matters is your inability to see that numbers don't prove something's worth and or quality! 50 Cent currently outsells Nas. I guess this means that 50 Cent produces more quality music than Nas and is a better artists, correct?

You're mistaken, on both accounts.

RAW averaged a 3.2 in December, which is also what it got last week. The average over a longer period is probably around 3.5. They struggle to break 4.0 regularly these days.

One ratings point is about 1.128 million households. 3.2 * 1.128 = 3.6 million viewers. 1.4 * 1.128 = 1.6 million viewers.

This is all according to the USA network:

"Raw," one of cable's top-rated programs, got its start with a seven-year run on USA before moving to Spike TV in 2000. The series returned to USA two years ago, helping boost the channel to its top standing among basic cable networks in primetime. Since its return, "Raw" has averaged 5.1 million total viewers, including 2.6 million in the adults 18-49 demographic and 2.3 million in adults 25-54, according to Nielsen Media Research.

No, it's not good. But it's still better than TNA has ever achieved. The fact is, 8 percent of RAW viewers were willing to pay to watch a PPV, whereas only 2 percent of iMPACT viewers are willing to do the same. If 8 percent is "not all that great", what's 2 percent?

And 8% is not that great for a company with so much tv time, so much talent, and for a company that is basically a promotional machine. So the great WWE only receives 6% more buyrates than TNA when they have 5 million viewers?:laugh:

Are you blaming TNA's low buyrates on the decor? :laugh:

It's an issue for plenty of TNA viewers because it feels exactly like Impact. But I'm not blaming it on anything. I'm saying there can be plenty of reasons. But at this point in the game it's not a big deal. If TNA was getting 3.0-4.0 ratings and receiving that amount, it would be an issue. Right now, it's not. And no one is expecting any thing huge from TNA at this point in terms of numbers in any form.

The number arguments are just something you anti-TNA people use in your arguments to convince yourself that TNA hasn't improved as a product even though numbers has little to do with quality.

We're not talking about getting people to watch the TV shows. We're talking about getting the people who do watch the TV shows to order the PPVs. That's what the wrestling business is all about.

Exactly! You're comparing Decemeber 2 Dismember's buyrates in comparison to TNA but ECW programming in late 2006 were doing Smackdown through Raw numbers. For only 90,000 people to order something receiving WWE ratings is weak.

You're talking about ads? What do you think iMPACT is? It's a two-hour commercial for the PPVs. That is it's function. TV ads get people to watch the TV shows, TV shows get people to watch the PPVs, PPVs make the company money. You can spend millions on marketing, you can get 50 million people watching iMPACT every week, but the only thing that will convince people to buy the PPVs is the product. The product is what sells the PPVs, not the TV ads. The TNA product is the marketing. And it's ineffective marketing, because only 2% of the people that see it are convinced by it.

What column did you copy and paste this information from?

TNA made a huge jump with Angle/Joe at Genesis 06, due to this being a very high feud with fans for a long time but since then TNA went back to their regular numbers and hasn't lost or gained any buyrates since. They're remaining consistent with numbers and that's all that matters.

I thought the numbers were pretty self-explanatory. 1.6 million people watch iMPACT, 2% of them buy the PPV.

You claim they're not interested just because they're not willing to shell out 30.00 for whatever reason but yet I'm pointing out to you that they're interested enough to come back week after week to maintain consistent ratings. The E can't even get consistent ratings. Like how many times, do they jump and lose viewers every week? If WWE was to get the same ratings and the same exact viewers as those who watch TNA weekly, I'm sure they'd do less because their wrestling matches are mostly crappy, booking is crappy, storylines are crappy, lineup is horrible, etc.

And you do realise that those people mean fuck all to TNA if they don't buy the PPVs, right? It's easy to get people to watch iMPACT. The show is free, people will watch it even if it's not that good. TNA's problem is, they have a "consistent viewership" that watch iMPACT and then don't buy the PPVs. For TNA to break even, let alone make a profit, that "consistent viewership" need to start spending $30 or $40 a month to watch the big shows.

And I'm sure those 1.1-1.2 viewers don't order PPV's period because if they do watch the E, I'm sure there is no way that those same viewers would order No surrender over the trash Unforgiven.

I've explained to you how buy rates work, what don't you understand? People buy PPVs if they value the product enough to pay $30, $40, $50 to watch it.

TNA has less viewership, they'll pull in less numbers. That's quite logical. WWE does huge numbers and pulls in horrible numbers. What's there problem?

Give TNA some of WWE's Raw viewers and tell me they won't pull in better numbers. If over 100,000 people can order crappy lineups like Vengeance, Unforgiven, or One Night Stand, I find it highly difficult that they'd have a problem ordering Bound For Glory or Slammiversay which were far better booked and had a more superior lineup.

Don't try to spin this any other way, the buyrates are low because the product isn't good enough.

Yeah and artists like The Roots get small numbers because they aren't good enough, proving artists like Souljah Boy, Bow Wow, and 50 Cent to be far superior than them due to their numbers.

Genesis 2006 got about 60,000 buys for TNA. That's a pretty good figure. Why did it get 60,000 buys? Because it was well booked. It was the first showdown between Angle and Joe, Cage and Styles put on a great match, Sting and Abyss put on a very good match too. They were built up well, and the fans shelled out to see the PPV.

Maybe because Angle(deemed as the best wrestler at the time) and Samoa Joe(best in TNA) was a long time dream match for wrestling fans before Angle's TNA arrival.

In July 2006, 60,000 people pay to see a TNA PPV. Eight months later, 45,000 of them aren't prepared to pay to watch Victory Road. A 75% drop. Why do you think that might be?

It's simple. The lineup wasn't strong, so ratings declined. It's no different than how WWE's buyrates plummeted with the wreck of a PPV that no one cared about last February called No Way Out, where Cena and Michaels headlined as tag champs.

 

[Bombsquad]

I've read this long debate. I've read it twice. Maybe because I'm bored. Either way, hituup, don't reply anymore because you have obviously won. You've been more truthful, made better counterpoints, made the most sense overall, and have been the most valid while Illuminattle is just obviously trying to bash TNA with the same booking arguement while not acknowledging the improvements in booking and just not giving them their due.

Illuminattle you didn't even know that Motor City Machine Gunz were on Bound For Glory and you claimed they were misused which were all inaccuracies. You've also tried to bring in numbers as if numbers determine how much TNA is accomplising as a product, meanwhile WWE/E isn't doing so hot themselves in buys. Either way the bullshit always gets higher numbers than the quality as with the music industry like hituup said, so numbers are inaccurate in terms of quality.

TNA is 5, going on 6 years old. The fact is that TNA is on TV, they have monthly PPVs, they're making better programming each week, and are still the fastest rising company of all time. The WWE continue to shove shit down people's throats and continue to make the same mistakes over and over. This is why TNA is a threat because TNA actually improves while the WWE keeps going in circles.

Illuminattle please don't reply back. Let it be over. All you're doing is defending the WWE, while you try to make TNA look like shit as possible which obviously isn't working. So yeah, both of you guys give it up!

 

[Illuminattile]

"Raw," one of cable's top-rated programs, got its start with a seven-year run on USA before moving to Spike TV in 2000. The series returned to USA two years ago, helping boost the channel to its top standing among basic cable networks in primetime. Since its return, "Raw" has averaged 5.1 million total viewers, including 2.6 million in the adults 18-49 demographic and 2.3 million in adults 25-54, according to Nielsen Media Research.

5 million viewers is a 4.4 on the Nielsen ratings. The last time RAW got a rating that high was February 2006. RAW does not get 5 million viewers every week, regardless of what USA says.

But at this point in the game it's not a big deal. If TNA was getting 3.0-4.0 ratings and receiving that amount, it would be an issue. Right now, it's not. And no one is expecting any thing huge from TNA at this point in terms of numbers in any form.

It is a big deal. TNA is losing money, and that's not going to change until TNA fans start buying the PPVs again.

The number arguments are just something you anti-TNA people use in your arguments to convince yourself that TNA hasn't improved as a product even though numbers has little to do with quality.

Well if the 975,000 people who watch TNA every week but DON'T order the PPV aren't doing so because of the quality, why are they refusing to pay the $30?

TNA made a huge jump with Angle/Joe at Genesis 06, due to this being a very high feud with fans for a long time but since then TNA went back to their regular numbers and hasn't lost or gained any buyrates since. They're remaining consistent with numbers and that's all that matters.

TNA has not remained consistent with buyrates. Not at all.

January: 34,000 buys for Final Resolution
February: 23,000 buys for Against All Odds
March: 36,000 buys for Destination X
April: 35,000 buys for Lockdown
May: 21,000 buys for Sacrifice
June: 22,000 buys for Slammiversary
July: 15,000 buys for Victory Road
August: 26,000 buys for Hard Justice
September: 17,000 buys for No Surrender
October: 36,000 buys for Bound For Glory
November: 27,000 buys for Genesis

You claim they're not interested just because they're not willing to shell out 30.00 for whatever reason but yet I'm pointing out to you that they're interested enough to come back week after week to maintain consistent ratings.

They come back every week because it's FREE! The low buyrates show that they don't think highly enough of the product to pay to see it. If you stand in the street handing out chocolate bars free of charge, people are going to keep coming back. They might not even like them, but they'll come back because it's free. Start charging people for them, and then you find out how many of them actually like the product.

TNA has less viewership, they'll pull in less numbers. That's quite logical. WWE does huge numbers and pulls in horrible numbers. What's there problem?

You're really not paying attention here. It doesn't matter how big TNA's viewership is, we're talking about the relationship between TNA viewership and PPV buyrates. The fact is, only 2% of TNA's viewers order the PPV. That's the figure that matters, and it's not a good figure. Forget about increasing viewing figures, that 2% is the figure that needs to change.

Give TNA some of WWE's Raw viewers and tell me they won't pull in better numbers. If over 100,000 people can order crappy lineups like Vengeance, Unforgiven, or One Night Stand, I find it highly difficult that they'd have a problem ordering Bound For Glory or Slammiversay which were far better booked and had a more superior lineup.

Well if Bound For Glory and Slammiversary are such well booked shows, why did only 2% of TNA's viewers buy them? If TNA had 3 million viewers, what makes you think more than 2% would order the PPV?

It doesn't take millions of TV viewers and mountains of cash to convince your fans to buy your PPVs. ECW's buyrates from 98/99/00 were higher than TNA's are.

Do you remember the Heroes of Wrestling PPV from 1999? Probably not, because it had very little promotion behind it. It featured a drunken, coked up Jake Roberts main eventing with King Kong Bundy, Yokozuna and Jim Neidhart. It was roundly criticised as the worst pay-per-view of all time. It got 29,000 buys. People would rather pay to see washed up "legends" than see the majority of TNA shows.

Yeah and artists like The Roots get small numbers because they aren't good enough, proving artists like Souljah Boy, Bow Wow, and 50 Cent to be far superior than them due to their numbers.

Again, you show me that you don't understand the point I'm making. Look at it like this; The Roots start putting on a FREE gig every week. Every week a thousand people show up to see it, and every week Black Thought reminds them that they have a CD coming out at the end of the month. That's one thousand people who choose to come to the gig, presumably because they like the band or the style of music. At the end of the month, they only manage to sell 20 CDs. Is that a good figure? No, it's not. And that's what's happening with TNA. People are coming to the shows, seeing what TNA has to offer, and then at the end of the month they're saying "Is it worth $30 to see the matches that TNA has been building up for four weeks? No, it's not".

Understand now?

Maybe because Angle(deemed as the best wrestler at the time) and Samoa Joe(best in TNA) was a long time dream match for wrestling fans before Angle's TNA arrival.

Exactly, and TNA built it up well enough that 60,000 people were willing to pay for it. But TNA failed to capitalise on that momentum, and they haven't come close to that figure since. They were getting 30,000+ buys back in 2005. 2005, when they had a one-hour timeslot on FSN. 30,000 for Against All Odds, 30,000 for Hard Justice, 35,000 for Lockdown. Now, despite having a two-hour timeslot on a much better network, they can't manage that. Why? Because in 2005, TNA was putting out a product worthy of the $30 it cost to buy the PPVs.

It's simple. The lineup wasn't strong, so ratings declined.

Exactly, the product wasn't good enough. That's what I've been trying to show you. Trying to pretend that TNA is putting out a top-notch product doesn't work when the buyrates show otherwise.

 

[Illuminattile]

You've also tried to bring in numbers as if numbers determine how much TNA is accomplising as a product

Well that's because the number DO reflect how good the TNA product is. I don't care how many people come on the internet and say "lolz, WWE sux and TNA rulz", and TNA don't care about that either. What they care about is PPV buyrates, and PPV buyrates are low.

Forget about WWE, don't worry about them. All I want you to do is explain to me why so few TNA fans are willing to buy TNA PPVs, when - according to you - the product is so good. Tell me why only 2% of TNA fans buy the pay-per-views every week.

That's all I want.

 

[Hituup]

I've read this long debate. I've read it twice. Maybe because I'm bored. Either way, hituup, don't reply anymore because you have obviously won. You've been more truthful, made better counterpoints, made the most sense overall, and have been the most valid while Illuminattle is just obviously trying to bash TNA with the same booking arguement while not acknowledging the improvements in booking and just not giving them their due.

Illuminattle you didn't even know that Motor City Machine Gunz were on Bound For Glory and you claimed they were misused which were all inaccuracies. You've also tried to bring in numbers as if numbers determine how much TNA is accomplising as a product, meanwhile WWE/E isn't doing so hot themselves in buys. Either way the bullshit always gets higher numbers than the quality as with the music industry like hituup said, so numbers are inaccurate in terms of quality.

TNA is 5, going on 6 years old. The fact is that TNA is on TV, they have monthly PPVs, they're making better programming each week, and are still the fastest rising company of all time. The WWE continue to shove shit down people's throats and continue to make the same mistakes over and over. This is why TNA is a threat because TNA actually improves while the WWE keeps going in circles.

Illuminattle please don't reply back. Let it be over. All you're doing is defending the WWE, while you try to make TNA look like shit as possible which obviously isn't working. So yeah, both of you guys give it up!

Exactly. Thank You. He lost the minute he said WWE was more entertaining than TNA and then proceeded to say he'd rather watch Cade & Murdoch over Team 3D.

Theres so many holes in his arguement, he's not even worth it. This guy has the WWE on the same scale as a company with not even 3 years of primetime television. That's shame enough for the WWE right there.

4.700,000 or 3 million people did not order one of their biggest PPV.

 

[Bombsquad]

Well that's because the number DO reflect how good the TNA product is. I don't care how many people come on the internet and say "lolz, WWE sux and TNA rulz", and TNA don't care about that either. What they care about is PPV buyrates, and PPV buyrates are low.

Forget about WWE, don't worry about them. All I want you to do is explain to me why so few TNA fans are willing to buy TNA PPVs, when - according to you - the product is so good. Tell me why only 2% of TNA fans buy the pay-per-views every week.

That's all I want.

Keep in mind that George Bush was voted as President over Kerry. It doesn't mean Bush was more qualified to run the country than John Kerry.

For your question. The answer could be for the same reason why CD sales have declined and why buyrates and ratings for wrestling on tv have declined period.

Numbers mean shit! You can't use numbers as a measuring stick as to the quality of anything whether it involves music, opening week for a movie, ratings, the quality of a wrestling company, etc. You know how many good CD's have flopped and how many terrible cd's have sold millions upon millions of records? You know how many "not so good movies" have been number one in the box office? There can be plenty of reasons why TNA doesn't receive 50% buyrates like the WWE, I mean like the WWE that receives only 8% buyrates. That doesn't matter because it's a very simple-minded arguement.

Your rationale is that if you do bad numbers you have a bad product. You don't realize how frivolous you sound?

 

[Illuminattile]

I can't believe you're having such a hard time understanding my question. Stop talking about CDs and films, it's not comparable. If The Roots only sold 60,000 copies of their last album, that doesn't mean it was bad. But if only 2% of Roots fans bought the last Roots album, that DOES suggest that it was bad.

We're not talking about the overall number of people who buy TNA PPVs. We're talking about the number of TNA fans who buy TNA PPVs. TNA has one million fans who watch their shows every week. That's one million people who know about the product and choose to watch it every week, yet 98% of them don't watch the PPVs.

There can be plenty of reasons why TNA doesn't receive 50% buyrates like the WWE, I mean like the WWE that receives only 8% buyrates. That doesn't matter because it's a very simple-minded arguement.

Well I'd like to hear some of these reasons that TNA can only get 2% of its fans to buy its PPVs. So far you've offered none.

Honestly, arguing with TNA fanboys can be so frustrating. I'm glad there are so few of you. Go and talk to some TNA fans (real TNA fans, ones that know what they're talking about) and ask them how they feel about Team 3D, Black Reign, MCMG etc. etc. There's a reason the Motor City Machine Guns showed up on the Torch's "Most Underutilized Act of 2007", along with Joe and the whole X Division. It's because all three were badly booked last year.

You can try and paint me as a WWE fanboy all you want, but I'm not the one who said that TNA - a company whose buyrates are in the gutter - would "continue to strive" in 2008. That is delusion. I've given TNA credit where it deserves it (the Women's division), and I've criticised WWE where it deserves it (Khali, Vince's "death" etc. etc.). I just don't try to pretend that Black Reign and Team 3D and Vince Russo's convoluted gimmick matches make for great television. Neither do most TNA fans, just the ones with blinders on.

 

[Bombsquad]

I can't believe you're having such a hard time understanding my question. Stop talking about CDs and films, it's not comparable. If The Roots only sold 60,000 copies of their last album, that doesn't mean it was bad. But if only 2% of Roots fans bought the last Roots album, that DOES suggest that it was bad.

We're talking about numbers period. According to your logic if a big screen movie like "Scarface" turned into a video game and didn't do well in video game sales, I guess to you it would mean that Scarface the movie was not of any quality, which would explain to you why the video game would receive lackluster sales? That's simple-minded.

We're not talking about the overall number of people who buy TNA PPVs. We're talking about the number of TNA fans who buy TNA PPVs. TNA has one million fans who watch their shows every week. That's one million people who know about the product and choose to watch it every week, yet 98% of them don't watch the PPVs.

According to you, the WWE has 3 million viewers, but yet only 300,000 people ordered Summerslam. That means 2.7 million people did not order their PPV. That doesn't mean the E is doing so hot either. So again according to your logic, there must be something wrong with the E as well. They're basically on the same buyrate scale as a company with not even about 2 years of primetime.

There's a reason the Motor City Machine Guns showed up on the Torch's "Most Underutilized Act of 2007", along with Joe and the whole X Division. It's because all three were badly booked last year.

I'm curious to know how many WWE guys were on that list as well, especially if Samoa Joe was on there.

You can try and paint me as a WWE fanboy all you want.

-You claimed Team 3D was washed up and that you preferred Cade & Murdoch over Team 3D when the truth is that Cade & Murdoch can't even work as well as Team 3D. Cade & Murdoch could barely even work smaller opponents like London and Kendrick as well as Team 3D worked and put over the Motor City Machine Gunz in their rivalry.

-You claimed Motor City Machine Gunz are misused as London and Kendrick which is very false as Motor City is TNA's most over and hottest tag team in the company who are bound to wear tag team gold.

-You claimed Motor City wasn't on Bound For Glory.

-You tried to deny that Vince and Hornswoggle take up Raw when they take up about 50-60% of Raw.

-You talk about TNA having bad booking from months ago which you fail to acknowledge has improved but yet you fail to acknowledge the WWE's booking. The WWE's booking is far from stellar.

-You seem to have this idea that because people don't take the time to dedicate columns to the WWE that they are on some kind of a role when you aren't obviously realizing that most people don't have time to beat up on a dead horse as opposed to a horse in the running that could possibly win.

-You fail to realize that the same mistakes that an amateur company like only TNA should be making is the same mistakes that the E makes daily and more blatantly. You fail to realize that the E should be making little to no mistakes at this point in the game.

-You fail to acknowledge the amount of filler on WWE tv but point out filler on TNA tv.

-You agreed that Hornswoggle is more deserving of his bastard role over someone who could actually benefit and go places with it such as Charlie Haas.

-You fail to realize that no matter how good a new company is doing, when it comes to numbers, whether ratings or buyrates, it won't compare to a mainstream company that's been around much longer. Ask the original ECW.

-You're pointing out everything that TNA is doing wrong but WWE is doing the same thing when they shouldn't. You claim Sharmell and Ms.Brooks were high up on a TNA card but failed to acknowledge that uppercarders like Booker T and Roode were in the same match. And then when you got a response about women's matches being put higher up on cards over world title matches, you had no response.

-You were quick to point out how much of a big deal it was that a man punched a non-wrestler woman but failed to point out how much of a big deal is made out of Randy Orton kicking someone in the head and is treated as lethal.

-You claimed TNA wasn't growing or getting better when the consensus among fans is that since the 2 hours TNA has improven and is still growing rapidly.

-You can't even admit that WWE produced a number of notoriously trash PPVs in 2007.

-You claim TNA is bad, but it can't be that bad if fans have voted Bound 4 Glory for PPV of the year on other sites.

-You fail to realize that when talking about a new company, the scale of buyrates and ratings are different in comparison to one that is established.

-WWE only doing 8% with the amount of viewers they've established is weak. Can you imagine if they were doing TNA ratings. According to math, they'd probably be doing around 1000 buys.

You have proven yourself to be a WWE mark.

 

[Illuminattile]

We're talking about numbers period. According to your logic if a big screen movie like "Scarface" turned into a video game and didn't do well in video game sales, I guess to you it would mean that Scarface the movie was not of any quality, which would explain to you why the video game would receive lackluster sales? That's simple-minded.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. We're talking about using one wrestling show (iMPACT) to promote another wrestling show (the PPVs). iMPACT is a 2-hour commercial for the PPVs, broadcast directly to people who obviously care about wrestling. As a two-hour commercial, it's not doing a good job.

We're not talking about using a film to promote a game.

According to you, the WWE has 3 million viewers, but yet only 300,000 people ordered Summerslam. That means 2.7 million people did not order their PPV. That doesn't mean the E is doing so hot either. So again according to your logic, there must be something wrong with the E as well. They're basically on the same buyrate scale as a company with not even about 2 years of primetime.

I'm not saying WWE is pulling in great numbers. I think pretty much every buyrate has been down on 2006's figures, except for WrestleMania and maybe a couple of others. But even when WWE buyrates are dropping, they're still getting 8% of their fans to shell out $40 for a PPV. They're doing a MUCH better job than TNA, who can't get 2% of their fans to spend $30 on a show. How long TNA has been around doesn't matter. The people who watch TNA every week just aren't buying the PPVs, that's the fact. If WWE were pulling in 60,000 buys for their PPVs, which is comparable to TNA getting 25,000 buys, then WWE would be in serious trouble.

I'm curious to know how many WWE guys were on that list as well, especially if Samoa Joe was on there.

You can't be surprised Joe was on there? Shelton Benjamin, Petey Williams, X Division, Marcus Cor Von, Mickie James, Chris Harris, Ric Flair, Rob Van Dam, Londrick, Homicide, Motor City Machine Guns, Cade & Murdoch, Kenny Dykstra, William Regal, Homicide (again), Sonjay Dutt, Samoa Joe, Carlito, Christopher Daniels and Melina.

-You claim TNA is bad, but it can't be that bad if fans have voted Bound 4 Glory for PPV of the year on other sites.

:laugh:

-You fail to realize that when talking about a new company, the scale of buyrates and ratings are different in comparison to one that is established.

But I've already shown you that TNA can get 50,000 and 60,000 buys for a PPV. They got 40,000 before they moved to Spike. It is possible. There's no magical barrier that will be lifted once they've been on the air for another couple of years. The only barrier to getting higher buyrates is the booking.

-WWE only doing 8% with the amount of viewers they've established is weak. Can you imagine if they were doing TNA ratings. According to math, they'd probably be doing around 1000 buys.

ECW was doing TNA ratings. It got 90,000 buys for December 2 Dismember. If TNA was doing 8%, it would be getting around the same, but it hasn't come close.

You have proven yourself to be a WWE mark.

Not once have I tried to pretend that WWE doesn't make mistakes. WWE, at times, makes bad booking decisions, pushes the wrong people, and puts out bad shows. I haven't ever claimed otherwise. Are you prepared to accept that TNA does all of those things too, or are you going to keep pretending it's all rainbows until Panda Energy cuts its losses and pulls its backing?

You seem happier to write it all off as "inexperience", rather than recognising TNA's flaws. If you think it's all suddenly going to fall into place after another six years, you're wrong. If the booking doesn't improve, then that 2% figure won't improve either. And if that 2% figure doesn't improve, then TNA will keep losing money. And if TNA keep losing money, then... well, you get the idea.

 

[tHuG $TyLe]

I've read this long debate. I've read it twice. Maybe because I'm bored. Either way, hituup, don't reply anymore because you have obviously won.

A TNA fan saying another TNA fan won a TNAvWWE debate. Lord heavens this is groundbreaking.

 

[Illuminattile]

It doesn't surprise me whatsoever to find out that Scott D'Amore is the one booking the TNA women's division. Unlike Russo and Mantell and Jarrett, he knows what he's doing.