From a business standpoint, you've just made your PPV main event look weak making people less likely to buy your show. From a casual fan, you may think it's entertaining, but from a TNA financial standpoint, it's bloody stupid.
There are many reasons why TNA PPVs are underperforming - ranging from too many for a small company, to poor production values, to a lack of an international buying market - but I can guarantee that Mr. Anderson being beaten by Eric Young will not effect the buyrate one iota.
Although if you want to talk about making a PPV main event look weak, go no further than John Cena vs The Miz in an 'I Quit' match :rolleyes:
Anderson is No. 1 contender because a) it's the culmination of his 'I want my friggin rematch!' mini-gimmick, and b) He won the battle royal making him the No. 1 contender.
For what it's worth, I actually think Anderson could beat Sting at Slammiversary, and if Angle goes over Jarrett (which I expect he will), then it'll be an Anderson/Angle feud for the title. This also leaves Sting free to start the expected program with Hogan.
A lot of people read the TNA spoilers on this board, myself included, so that limits the 'live' discussion somewhat.
Although in my opinion, I've always found the idea of commenting on message boards while trying to watch something - be it wrestling, football or a TV show - really rather sad.
There's no better time to get your first "shock/facepalm" feeling out than as it happens. However, I don't do it... not here anyway.
At some point TNA will have to make money or it will die. Any competent business will not just keep losing money and except it. Panda at some point will say enough is enough. If TNA are successful, Panda aren't going to do that.
One issue with this: Football Clubs. Owning a football club NEVER makes you money. You're in it just for the enjoyment. It isn't so hard to think that Panda, like Ted Turner, could be in it because they actually LIKE it. And given UFC's off, they'll be the biggest thing on Spike.
I remember Jim Ross pinned HHH once, around 2003 or 2004 I think. Didnt exactly do him any harm.
April 18th, 2005. Two weeks later, HHH was beat by Batistia at Backlash.
At least EY vs. Anderson makes sense. Who in their right minds books JR vs. HHH in a No-DQ match!?
It's not a "freak" loss at all. In fact, I'd say EY is twice the wrestler Anderson ever will be. The problem there is that Anderson is ex-WWE and trumps on entertainment value, charisma and mic ability. Although EY isn't far off that standard, in my opinion.
I personally don't have a problem with EY pinning Anderson before the PPV. I mean, it was fun, it didn't make Anderson look weak, Anderson was acting like an idiot. Its not like he was doing a bad ass thing and was made to look weak, he was pretending to be retro Sting and got pinned by someone that was annoyed at him.
Personally though I don't think the ME has been played up well enough though. I mean with all the other stories running in TNA at the moment I think the title match has gone under the radar in the build up to the PPV. So for me it looks weaker then something like Angle v Jarrett just because it hasn't been built up enough since the last PPV and when Anderson became the number 1 contender.
As for impact itself, I have been enjoying it recently. I really liked the Crimson/Hardy and Kendrick/Kaz matches. Happy to see Shelley back on TV . Plus I am really loving Xplosion.
Apparently, Bischoff doesn't like the Anderson/Sting storyline, which is probably why it's not being pushed as well as, say, Jarrett/Angle. I've enjoyed it though. Been a change.
Someone told me today that Bischgan has become tired of Russo's "creativity" lately. Along with Jarrett getting frustrated also, Russo would be out on his ear soonish...
THIS IS NOT A SPORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wins and losses matter. Goldberg was over because he never lost. Brock was over because he never lost. Hogan lost clean twice in the 1990's IIRC (Once to Warrior and once to Piper, who, by the way, also almost never lost clean- and was over).
Thinking wins and losses don't matter is one of TNA's big mistakes. Because they do.
Wins and losses matter. Goldberg was over because he never lost. Brock was over because he never lost. Hogan lost clean twice in the 1990's IIRC (Once to Warrior and once to Piper, who, by the way, also almost never lost clean- and was over).
Thinking wins and losses don't matter is one of TNA's big mistakes. Because they do.
It's a mistake Russo made in WCW, and it's a mistake WWE makes too. One of those things that has made it harder for fans to actually engage with anything.
Apparently, Bischoff doesn't like the Anderson/Sting storyline, which is probably why it's not being pushed as well as, say, Jarrett/Angle. I've enjoyed it though. Been a change.
Someone told me today that Bischgan has become tired of Russo's "creativity" lately. Along with Jarrett getting frustrated also, Russo would be out on his ear soonish...
As I've said before, the most notable thing about that Dixie youshoot interview is she said over and over and over again that Russo will never be sacked. She is close friends with him apparently.
I agree in general with win/losses playing a factor in getting and keeping people over and pushing towards the PPV. But the 80's and early 90's is a world away in wrestling terms. The game changed with the introduction of Nitro, then again with Raw is War, Thunder, Smackdown and now Impact. Now we expect a serialised format with star vs. star matches, and not too much predictability.
The superhero pushes existed mostly during the era of jobber matches and limited PPV's. It is very difficult to do that now without people turning against them or getting bored by the predictabilty. On the otherhand is can be done on special ocassion, proving very effective -- Batista very rarely suffered a loss between 2005 and 2008, as did John Cena during the same period.
The superhero pushes existed mostly during the era of jobber matches and limited PPV's. It is very difficult to do that now without people turning against them or getting bored by the predictabilty. On the otherhand is can be done on special ocassion, proving very effective -- Batista very rarely suffered a loss between 2005 and 2008, as did John Cena during the same period.
It's no coincidence that those two are last bona fide 'superstars' WWE created.
One issue with this: Football Clubs. Owning a football club NEVER makes you money. You're in it just for the enjoyment. It isn't so hard to think that Panda, like Ted Turner, could be in it because they actually LIKE it. And given UFC's off, they'll be the biggest thing on Spike.
.
Do you really think people who own football clubs aren't in it to make money? Same with TNA.
Wins and losses matter. Goldberg was over because he never lost. Brock was over because he never lost. Hogan lost clean twice in the 1990's IIRC (Once to Warrior and once to Piper, who, by the way, also almost never lost clean- and was over).
Thinking wins and losses don't matter is one of TNA's big mistakes. Because they do.
shock wins can be great,especially when its a character like EY
but you dont want to enjoy yourself, you want a sport
Predetermined sport is an oxymoron. There isn't any element of genuine, in-ring competition - all the fights are done via backstage politics.
It's an entertaining, action soap-opera...really is the best way to describe it tbh.
Maybe so, but you need to get people to buy into the "sport" aspect of it. Otherwise why would you buy a PPV. That's been a problem for TNA, as people say I'll just watch Impact for free.
For years, wrestling has worked on the premise that your are paying to see one guy kick the other guys backside, or your seing a guy going after a title etc.
shock wins can be great,especially when its a character like EY
but you dont want to enjoy yourself, you want a sport
stop watching pro wrestling,it isnt for you buddy
Shock wins can be good, but this isn't one of them.
Eric Young is treated as a goof. Having him beat your no.1 contender before a PPV is stupid and reduces him as a threat to Sting's title in the eyes of mainstream viewers. If he can't beat EY, he has no chance with Sting?
Looking at how TNA's ratings have reduced last week and this week in the States, down to a 1.0, would suggest that people aren't gripped by TNA's storylines at the mo.
It's no coincidence that those two are last bona fide 'superstars' WWE created.
Absolutely. I bet Batista's successor Randy Orton has not been pinned on more than 5 occasions in the last 12 months. So being a superhero is still quite relevant when it comes to creating megababyfaces.
I can certainly see the argument in TNA not exactly giving inspiring build to the payoff (PPV). But then I think WWE are just as guilty. I think it's down to the TV fomat mentality from the likes of Russo and Gerwirtz, McMahon going senile and Dixie just being very much out of her depth as a wrestling promoter. The likes of Jim Ross, Pat Patterson, Gerry Brisco etc had a better grasp of booking towards the payoff, due to the 1970's wrasslin' mentality. But all of them have taken a backseat.
Absolutely. I bet Batista's successor Randy Orton has not been pinned on more than 5 occasions in the last 12 months. So being a superhero is still quite relevant when it comes to creating megababyfaces.
I can certainly see the argument in TNA not exactly giving inspiring build to the payoff (PPV). But then I think WWE are just as guilty. I think it's down to the TV fomat mentality from the likes of Russo and Gerwirtz, McMahon going senile and Dixie just being very much out of her depth as a wrestling promoter. The likes of Jim Ross, Pat Patterson, Gerry Brisco etc had a better grasp of booking towards the payoff, due to the 1970's wrasslin' mentality. But all of them have taken a backseat.
Do you really think people who own football clubs aren't in it to make money? Same with TNA.
If they're in it to make money, they're idiots. Currently, football is not a business you can make money in, unless you invest heavily and get promotion after promotion then sell up as it enters the Premier League.
It's a passion. And it seems that, like Ted Turner LOVED WCW and was forced to sell by AOL, Dixie's dad bought her TNA, and she loves that. I can't see it ever being sold off unless a ridiculous amount was offered by someone other than Vince McMahon.
Shock wins can be good, but this isn't one of them.
Eric Young is treated as a goof. Having him beat your no.1 contender before a PPV is stupid and reduces him as a threat to Sting's title in the eyes of mainstream viewers. If he can't beat EY, he has no chance with Sting?
Treated as a goof. Excellent wrestler. Superb entertainer, but not World Champion calibre.
I think after weeks of Anderson getting his own way, it was about time someone brought him down a peg. And, if anything, it'll motivate him to give Sting his full attention and not rip him off.
Looking at how TNA's ratings have reduced last week and this week in the States, down to a 1.0, would suggest that people aren't gripped by TNA's storylines at the mo.
Aren't they up against the Basketball? Not giving excuses, but hell, if Blackburn Rovers were playing one night that TNA was on, I'd pick the football over TNA.
Treated as a goof. Excellent wrestler. Superb entertainer, but not World Champion calibre.
I think after weeks of Anderson getting his own way, it was about time someone brought him down a peg. And, if anything, it'll motivate him to give Sting his full attention and not rip him off.
Eric Young is a good wrestler. Just having a goof beating your No.1 contender before the PPV just makes Anderson look stupid and won't convince people to buy the show.
Aren't they up against the Basketball? Not giving excuses, but hell, if Blackburn Rovers were playing one night that TNA was on, I'd pick the football over TNA.
I think the PVR ratings were low as well, so it wasn't like people just recorded it.
Comments
Also, Vinny Mac pinned HHH for the WWF title in 1999. The Hurricane pinned The Rock before WM 19, best of all being Kevin Federline pinning John Cena!
One match, one roll-up, one cheap finish has never harmed a guy that hes no longer over.
lmao no creativity in any of the smarks
So why is Anderson the No.1 Contender then?
There are many reasons why TNA PPVs are underperforming - ranging from too many for a small company, to poor production values, to a lack of an international buying market - but I can guarantee that Mr. Anderson being beaten by Eric Young will not effect the buyrate one iota.
Although if you want to talk about making a PPV main event look weak, go no further than John Cena vs The Miz in an 'I Quit' match :rolleyes:
Anderson is No. 1 contender because a) it's the culmination of his 'I want my friggin rematch!' mini-gimmick, and b) He won the battle royal making him the No. 1 contender.
For what it's worth, I actually think Anderson could beat Sting at Slammiversary, and if Angle goes over Jarrett (which I expect he will), then it'll be an Anderson/Angle feud for the title. This also leaves Sting free to start the expected program with Hogan.
why sould one FREAK loss affect that?
THIS IS NOT A SPORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's a predetermined sport. If it isn't why are there titles?
Predetermined sport is an oxymoron. There isn't any element of genuine, in-ring competition - all the fights are done via backstage politics.
It's an entertaining, action soap-opera...really is the best way to describe it tbh.
There's no better time to get your first "shock/facepalm" feeling out than as it happens. However, I don't do it... not here anyway.
One issue with this: Football Clubs. Owning a football club NEVER makes you money. You're in it just for the enjoyment. It isn't so hard to think that Panda, like Ted Turner, could be in it because they actually LIKE it. And given UFC's off, they'll be the biggest thing on Spike.
April 18th, 2005.
At least EY vs. Anderson makes sense. Who in their right minds books JR vs. HHH in a No-DQ match!?
It's not a "freak" loss at all. In fact, I'd say EY is twice the wrestler Anderson ever will be. The problem there is that Anderson is ex-WWE and trumps on entertainment value, charisma and mic ability. Although EY isn't far off that standard, in my opinion.
I personally don't have a problem with EY pinning Anderson before the PPV. I mean, it was fun, it didn't make Anderson look weak, Anderson was acting like an idiot. Its not like he was doing a bad ass thing and was made to look weak, he was pretending to be retro Sting and got pinned by someone that was annoyed at him.
Personally though I don't think the ME has been played up well enough though. I mean with all the other stories running in TNA at the moment I think the title match has gone under the radar in the build up to the PPV. So for me it looks weaker then something like Angle v Jarrett just because it hasn't been built up enough since the last PPV and when Anderson became the number 1 contender.
As for impact itself, I have been enjoying it recently. I really liked the Crimson/Hardy and Kendrick/Kaz matches. Happy to see Shelley back on TV
Someone told me today that Bischgan has become tired of Russo's "creativity" lately. Along with Jarrett getting frustrated also, Russo would be out on his ear soonish...
Wins and losses matter. Goldberg was over because he never lost. Brock was over because he never lost. Hogan lost clean twice in the 1990's IIRC (Once to Warrior and once to Piper, who, by the way, also almost never lost clean- and was over).
Thinking wins and losses don't matter is one of TNA's big mistakes. Because they do.
As I've said before, the most notable thing about that Dixie youshoot interview is she said over and over and over again that Russo will never be sacked. She is close friends with him apparently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW7rS02l3o4
The superhero pushes existed mostly during the era of jobber matches and limited PPV's. It is very difficult to do that now without people turning against them or getting bored by the predictabilty. On the otherhand is can be done on special ocassion, proving very effective -- Batista very rarely suffered a loss between 2005 and 2008, as did John Cena during the same period.
It's no coincidence that those two are last bona fide 'superstars' WWE created.
Do you really think people who own football clubs aren't in it to make money? Same with TNA.
shock wins can be great,especially when its a character like EY
but you dont want to enjoy yourself, you want a sport
stop watching pro wrestling,it isnt for you buddy
Maybe so, but you need to get people to buy into the "sport" aspect of it. Otherwise why would you buy a PPV. That's been a problem for TNA, as people say I'll just watch Impact for free.
For years, wrestling has worked on the premise that your are paying to see one guy kick the other guys backside, or your seing a guy going after a title etc.
Shock wins can be good, but this isn't one of them.
Eric Young is treated as a goof. Having him beat your no.1 contender before a PPV is stupid and reduces him as a threat to Sting's title in the eyes of mainstream viewers. If he can't beat EY, he has no chance with Sting?
Looking at how TNA's ratings have reduced last week and this week in the States, down to a 1.0, would suggest that people aren't gripped by TNA's storylines at the mo.
Absolutely. I bet Batista's successor Randy Orton has not been pinned on more than 5 occasions in the last 12 months. So being a superhero is still quite relevant when it comes to creating megababyfaces.
I can certainly see the argument in TNA not exactly giving inspiring build to the payoff (PPV). But then I think WWE are just as guilty. I think it's down to the TV fomat mentality from the likes of Russo and Gerwirtz, McMahon going senile and Dixie just being very much out of her depth as a wrestling promoter. The likes of Jim Ross, Pat Patterson, Gerry Brisco etc had a better grasp of booking towards the payoff, due to the 1970's wrasslin' mentality. But all of them have taken a backseat.
God help me
No doubt. WWE isn't doing brilliant stuff either.
If they're in it to make money, they're idiots. Currently, football is not a business you can make money in, unless you invest heavily and get promotion after promotion then sell up as it enters the Premier League.
It's a passion. And it seems that, like Ted Turner LOVED WCW and was forced to sell by AOL, Dixie's dad bought her TNA, and she loves that. I can't see it ever being sold off unless a ridiculous amount was offered by someone other than Vince McMahon.
Treated as a goof. Excellent wrestler. Superb entertainer, but not World Champion calibre.
I think after weeks of Anderson getting his own way, it was about time someone brought him down a peg. And, if anything, it'll motivate him to give Sting his full attention and not rip him off.
Aren't they up against the Basketball? Not giving excuses, but hell, if Blackburn Rovers were playing one night that TNA was on, I'd pick the football over TNA.
Eric Young is a good wrestler. Just having a goof beating your No.1 contender before the PPV just makes Anderson look stupid and won't convince people to buy the show.
I think the PVR ratings were low as well, so it wasn't like people just recorded it.