Not direct competition, no. But it's clear that a lot of people think NXT is the best WWE product and therefore, Monday Night RAW should follow its lead in terms of style of programming. I'm simply stating that what works on the WWE Network doesn't work on primetime television.


The "identical number of homes" argument is a ludicrous one. BBC One is available in an identical number of homes to BBC Four - when was the last time you saw the latter outdraw the former? USA Network has had the biggest viewership in the States for nearly a decade straight now. To suggest that Spike is/was on the same level as that because it's available in the same number of homes is incredibly disingenuous.

But hey, I'm not here to defend TNA. Has their product been poor at times? Damn right it has. Do they need to take responsibility for their loss of grassroots supporters? Of course they do. Has it been a total trainwreck and car-crash television every week though? Obviously not - their in-ring product has always been their strongest asset, meshing a variety of different styles, and I think most "wrestling" fans would agree that seeing the likes of Daniels, Styles, Hardy, Joe, LAX, The Wolves, MCMG, Roode, Aries and Angle wrestling every week has been anything but a difficult watch. Since 2011, when Russo was ditched, they've continued to deliver strongly on that front.

I seriously think you are undervaluing how much that "WWE" logo in front of NXT adds to the perceived value of the product.

Although when you actually stop and listen to the elements of NXT that people would like to see adopted on the main WWE programming there's absolutely no reason to think it wouldn't work. With the exception of the way NXT books the women's division (which is a talent issue more than anything else) there's very little on NXT that couldn't be translated to the main shows with successful results. Although I know reaction to it often suggests otherwise NXT hasn't reinvented the wheel. It works and people enjoy it because it presents clear, simple and logical story progression with characters that are (for the most part) clearly defined and identifiable. That's what people want to see on WWE television.


A terrible comparison point. BBC4 is not only a niche station targeting a different audience its (effectively) broadcast via a different platform. The more viable comparison there would be BBC2 to BBC1 (although again not perfect) or BBC4 to BBC3 although in the case of the BBC3/4 comparison you'd have to factor in differences in HD availability as well.


Only it isn't.

TNA on Spike was not at some remarkable disadvantage. They were available in almost as many homes as the WWE product on USA and on a network to which wrestling fans were already familiar given that it had previously aired WWE content. Not to mention the fact that Spike also aired MMA content for which there should have been some degree of viewer crossover with TNA. Spike isn't some niche little network that audiences were unaware existed. TNA failed to capitalise on the huge opportunity they were presented with. My point here by the way isn't that TNA should have launched on Spike with the same numbers as Raw on USA but rather that on Spike TNA weren't at some horrific potential viewer disadvantage and should have spent the decade or so that they were on that network growing their audience. They might find that had they done that they wouldn't be in such a terrible position now. Again its a problem of TNA's making.


I don't think I'd struggle to find any number of wrestling fans that would disagree with this at all. I'm one of them. If TNA were able to get out of their talents way then I don't doubt it would be a true statement but they've proven themselves spectacularly incapable of doing that.


I'm not undervaluing the importance of being part of the WWE system has had in gaining exposure for NXT. Its given them a weekly outlet that's been invaluable on that front. I do however think its staggeringly misguided to suggest that its the WWE branding that's driving interest in NXT. That branding or more accurately being a WWE affiliate has given them the platform to establish a following but its been the product they're producing that's actually established that audience. If people weren't excited about and enjoying the product no amount of WWE branding would make them rave about it the way they are with NXT.

Sorry to go off the general flow of things for a minute, but am I going crazy, or a while back did TNA have their refs wear a camera for a brief period?

I could have sworn that they did, but I could be wrong, anyone help to clear this up for me?

Don't know if tna did, but wcw had there refs wear a skateboard helmet with a camera back in the early 90s

Yeah they did, it didn't last long though.

NXT reminds me of TNA 10 years ago exactly. When I got into it due to its exciting roster, hot crowd and genuine difference to WWE. It's better in some ways because even back in the early days of Impact there was some questionable episodes and an over reliance on gimmick matches, thus negating their appeal. I also prefer NXTs psychology and pacing compared to TNAs 'total nonstop action'. But on the other hand NXT is a bit too simplistic compared to TNA, which is understandable though due to aims.

I've tried watching NXT. It's a little vanilla for my tastes. It feels like exactly what it is, a pet project. That's not to say there aren't some very talented people on it.

Funnily enough, all the NXT wrestlers and gimmicks they've imported to RAW have really appealed to me. But by and large, they haven't appealed to the RAW audience. That says a lot: I am not typical of the RAW audience! Ags is right - NXT is made for a smark audience. It's also not on real TV, is bankrolled by WWE, and benefits from cross promotion on WWE shows. It's a pet project; a little indulgence for the company done with spare cash. It doesn't have to be self-sufficient, nor could it be.

Anyway, this isn't the NXT thread! Actually we should get one of those.

There isn't very much that does appeal to the Raw audience in terms of loud reactions though. Because everyone is booked like shit. Look at how all of those promoted have been presented when they got to the main show.

Also, this narrative about TNA's downsizing being down to the product. I know it's the conventional internet received wisdom, but it doesn't hold up. TNA's downsizing mirrors wrestling's general decline in popularity exactly.

Spike didn't drop TNA, they dropped wrestling. Where's the new wrestling show they've replaced TNA with? Oh, that's right there isn't one. Every pro wrestling promotion's profits, viewership and attendance has dropped over the same period TNA has been downsizing. How did WWE's new TV negotiations go? Oh, that's right, very badly. Where's the new number 2 promotion snapping at TNA's heels and punishing it for its "bad product"? Oh yeah, there isn't one.

The sad fact is UFC has been eating wrestling's lunch for a decade or more. Wrestling attracts an undesireable, low rent crowd and TV networks aren't overly keen on showing it. I watch it out of nostalgia and because it's comfort TV. But come on, if you were a network exec would you buy a wrestling show? In 2015?

I think the NXT gimmicks come across as kooky on RAW. Now, I love kooky! I thought Emma was awesome and hilarious. I love Bo. I love the Ascension. But they're not balls out brandable, merchantisable stick it on a lunchbox gimmicks. They're cute, appeal to wrestling nerds and students type gimmicks. That's why I thought ags observation that NXT's a bit of a smark show was spot on.

I should give NXT another go shouldn't I? I totally *should* like it.

Except there has been reports they've been in talks with NJPW to pick up a weekly television show when their short deal with AXS is done.

As for WWE's TV negotiations going "very badly", really? Less than expected in the US, that is undeniable, but an rumoured I ncrease of $90m worldwide (which in the US at least will rise every year until 2018), three major markets increased by at least double. Jesus If that's "very badly", imagine how very good would be.

Doing badly is having to drop 45 million homes just to stay on air.

Also heard they want to talk to Jerrett when they leaglly can.

Part of his leaving TNA deal was he couldn't talk to Spike about a new show for X amount of time.

Lol at Rhino still being on the TNA websites roster page. http://www.impactwrestling.com/roster/Wrestler-Roster

No they definitely dropped TNA.

I'll also just point out that TNA have been a supposedly major wrestling company for a decade now do you not think that perhaps they bare some of the responsibility for the supposed shrinking in the popularity of professional wrestling? I honestly don't see how you can possibly attempt to argue that TNA aren't responsible for their own downfall here. But no obviously its not TNA's fault. Lets blame WWE because that makes perfect sense. Only it doesn't.

And by the way WWE's television negotiations didn't go badly. They certainly oversold (to investors) how much their content was worth but they still earn a lot from their television shows.

Also too late to edit my post,

As for TV networks not taking on new wrestling shows, are you forgetting that TNA debuted on Destination America in 2015? Are you ignoring NJPW debuting on AXS in 2015 and Lucha Underground debuting in October 2014?

So it seems to me that TV network execs do want to take on new wrestling shows as they have.

I think there is absolutely zero chance of Spike taking on wrestling again. I'll believe it when I see it.

As an aside, is that a documented fact about Jarrett's leaving conditions? Or dirtsheet rumour? 'Cause it sounds like exactly the kind of thing they like to basically make up.

I didn't say it was WWE's fault It's the entire industry's fault for failing to reinvent itself, address UFC or move with the times in any way. TNA have to take a share of the blame for that, sure. But the idea that Impact is or has ever been substantially worse than any other promotion's output, nope, don't buy it.

Small networks, small shows, loyal hardcore audience. This, right now, is wrestling's future.

But still three wrestling companies picked up by networks in the past six months, maybe you should have added that caveat to the original statement. And not quite sure how you've assessed LU as having a loyal hardcore audience considering they've been on television for less than four months.

Seems strange then that TNA management seemed to always think that the next boom was just around the corner and that they could compete with WWE. Did they blow a legitimate opportunity or were they just stupid and delusional?

Hmm. I think they were a bit deluded. Panda / Spike sunk a lot of money into TNA and didn't see a return, banking on another wrestling boom which never happened. I do agree with people that TNA did blow it in a sense, but only the sense that the whole industry blew it, by failing to evolve. TNA were a part of that failing, sure.

One thing people rarely express on the internet, but an opinion of mine, is that a resurgent TNA would be good for WWE, and a boom in WWE would benefit TNA. I think the wrestling industry lives or dies on general mainstream interest in wrestling, and one promotion doing well can actually benefit others.

Those are fair points. I must also admit that I've yet to watch LU. My guess is that it's a kind of cult, small scale show. The name and what I've heard about it suggests that.

TNA's product has been substantially worse than other promotions. It might not have been (consistently) at WCW 2000 levels but as bars to clear go it doesn't really get lower than that. And I use WCW 2000 as the majority agreed upon worst of professional wrestling.

I'll also just say that I think the impact of UFC and more broadly MMA in general on the popularity of wrestling is wildly overstated. It may have impacted upon Pay-Per-View business but beyond that I think its a hugely overstated thing and fairly convenient excuse wheeled out by the wrestling business and fans.


TNA is entirely to blame for its own failings (that is the point I'm making). Is it partially to blame for wider issues within the industry as a whole? Sure. But the situation TNA is now in is one of its own making entirely.


I think its very regularly said that a better TNA would be nothing but a good thing for WWE. I can't however say that I agree a booming WWE would necessarily be good for TNA.

This post is just a list of your opinions with no reasoning behind them. It's hard to argue objectively about the entertainment quality of Impact. But certainly ratings have shown that when the internet thinks Impact is "good" or "bad" has no effect on its viewership in the real world.

The wrestling audience has declined, especially with regards to PPV, more or less in line with the rise of UFC. WWE has just lost its most credible star to UFC, and its most successful PPV draw and current champion is a former UFC fighter. TNA's current champion is also an MMA fighter. These are facts.

WWE booming would benefit TNA in terms of general interest in wrestling and the runoff from that. TNA gets better ratings every year during the "road to wrestlmania", for example.

What gave it away, the use of the phrase "I think" perhaps?

Although I do enjoy the irony of this being wheeled out by people who have made their own completely unsubstantiated claims particularly when said claims are then widely refuted.


Although this isn't entirely true.

For a long time the highest rated portion of Impact every week were the Knockouts who also happened to be the mostly widely praised part of TNA as well. Its also worth remembering that the only time TNA has seen any real ratings growth or momentum it was also being widely praised online – the build to the first Joe/Angle match. Certainly the week-by-week churn of numbers doesn't do much but that's broadly true of just about any television product. Numbers ebb and flow they don't tend to erratically spike.


Speaking of unsubstantiated claims.

As I said previously I can go along with the idea that the growth of MMA (and UFC in particular) has impacted upon the Pay-Per-View market (although again I think this is largely overstated because its convenient to do so) but outside of that there's actually very little to support this idea that the UFC or more broadly MMA is crippling WWE or the wrestling business. And this argument comes extraordinarily undone with WWE in a PG holding pattern. The truth is that MMA has become a convenient scapegoat within pro-wrestling. Business isn't down because of MMA and the rise of the UFC does not mirror the 'fall' of WWE when you actually examine it in any kind of detail. Its a deluded fantasy to think that the audience that's going to UFC is going to UFC for the reasons they used to or would otherwise go to WWE (or any other wrestling promotion). They're incredibly different industries. Is there an overlap in the audience, yes but there's also an overlap in the audience with the NFL, NBA and boxing and I don't see anyone arguing that those are killing off WWE business despite the fact that at least two of them are wildly more popular than UFC and all three are much more widely acceptable than UFC.

That the wrestling industry is down is the fault of the wrestling industry. MMA is completely irrelevant to the situation beyond it being something that is kind of popular with young men now.


CM Punk was WWE's most credible star? To be fair that could be true since I have absolutely no idea what the phrase 'most credible star' actually means. Presumably because it doesn't really mean anything.


They're also fairly aimless facts.

Kurt Angle is a former Olympic gold medalist, does this mean the Olympics is somehow killing the wrestling industry? And I'd point out having an MMA fighter as Champion has done a grand total of nothing for TNA.

Also lets go ahead and actually examine this claim that Brock Lesnar is WWE's most successful Pay-Per-View draw shall we?

Extreme Rules '12: 263k buys
+55k on 2011
This seems like a win for Lesnar = super mega draw but (and this is a big but) WrestleMania 28 which happened just before Extreme Rules and without Lesnar was the most successful WrestleMania ever so its fair to say WWE business in general was on a high at this point.

SummerSlam '12: 358k buys
+62k on 2011
This again seems like a win in the Lesnar = super mega draw column but here's the problem. SummerSlam 2011 was an unusually low number for SummerSlam. The previous year it draw 350k buys just 8k less than in 2012 and in 2009 it draw 369k.

WrestleMania 29: 1.04 million buys
-205k buys
Lesnar on the WrestleMania card actually saw a rather steep year-on-year decline in buys and WrestleMania 29 was down on 27 as well.

Extreme Rules '13: 228k buys
-35k
Again we see a year-on-year decline in the buy rate.

SummerSlam '13: 298k buys
-60k
Another year-on-year decline.

Royal Rumble '14: 467k buys
-45k
And another year-on-year decline

From here comparisons become difficult to do because the WWE Network effect means buys are always going to be down year-on-year. I would however suggest that these actual numbers poke more than a few holes in the notion that Brock Lesnar is a huge PPV draw for WWE. But do you want to know who has proven to be a huge draw for WWE lately? The Rock. With the exception of WrestleMania 29 (which followed the most successful WrestleMania ever headlined by The Rock) a Rock match on Pay-Per-View the last couple of years has produced a noticeable spike in buys. Hell even when he was just the host of WrestleMania the buys were up year-on-year.


As I said I don't think it would necessarily be a great thing for TNA. Yes they might see some short term halo effect if WWE business were booming but unless their product were better and more engaging that's all it would be a short term halo effect. We know that a rising tide does not raise all boats in the wrestling industry. We've seen it multiple times throughout history.