NXT could transfer its better wrestling product to RAW, sure. And certain characters like Owens, Balor and Zayn could fit in. But huge amounts of the show is about largely indescript wrestlers who are very good at what they do but have no discernable personality traits OR guys with ludicrous gimmicks turned up to 11, like Enzo Amore. The show is only an hour long, filled with pre-taped promos and in-house advertisements, leaving the rest of the time for wrestling. There's so little there in terms of live promos and 'out there' segments. It's a simple, simple show. That works - at this level. But RAW isn't a simple show and the crowd is a melting pot of different ages, wrestling knowledge and dedication to the product. Quite the opposite from a smark crowd who will pop at anything just because it's an indie show.


OK, it's quite clear here you have no idea what you're talking about. BBC Four is not broadcast on a different platform. It is available on Freeview, and seeing as the entire country has been digital since 2012, if you can get BBC One, then you can get BBC Four. BBC One is directly comparable to USA Network in that they both target wide demographics with no specific audience in mind as a network (only for specific shows). BBC Four may be a niche station in that it targets a smaller sub-section of the audience, so hey, lets be fair and say BBC Three, which despite being a niche station is aimed more at a young demographic, mainly males. When was the last time it outperformed BBC One? SpikeTV is about the same as BBC Three in that, unlike USA Network, it targets a specific demographic. I don't know why you would even argue about this as it's a fact.



Yes and no. Nobody has said they were at a horrific disadvantage, and TNA did drop the ball on numerous occasions by failing to capitalise on momentum. But likewise it is tremendously unfair to suggest TNA should have shown any meaningful growth during an industry slump. WWE's average rating in 2006 was in the low 4.0s - in 2014 it was around a 3.0. Unfortunately for the wrestling industry as a whole, unlike the Monday Night Wars, these fans weren't switching product - they were just switching off.

Just watched Lockdown, thought it was poor.

Saw Velvets leaving on it as well

Just wondering, why is Jeff Hardy banned from entering the UK due to his conviction for drug possesion but MVP, who served 9 years in prison for armed robbery and kidnapping is allowed in?

NXT always will be nothing more than a small indie talent program. USA Network and SyFy would never allow that to air on prime time on their network, nor would advertisers pay money for it, nor would the casual WWE audience watch it.

I read it's something to do with the time the crimes were committed the law had changed when Jeff broke the law so anyone comitting certain crimes after a certain date wouldn't be allowed in.

It's a development arm of WWE. It's not looking for a television slot, it's got a home.

I know where it is Hollie but you need the internet marks think this is what WWE is going to become when Triple H and Stephanie take over and they need to understand this before they get dissapointed. It will never be allowed on prime time TV. It's not the 1970s anymore.

Wrestling on TV needs to have bad acting and women acting slutty and be theatrical and have simulated violence. Having a show like NXT where they try and portray the matches as being real would never work on TV. There's a reason why professional wrestling on TV is popular and it will ALWAYS be popular.

Consider this: Viewership breakdowns showed Dixie's segments to be a draw, despite the internet having a collective aneurism every time she was on TV. Hence my point: The internet doesn't actually know what draws. Impact didn't stall at 1.1m viewers because it was "bad", it stalled because it had saturated the audience for a non-WWE wrestling show on Spike. Spike realised this too, hence no more wrestling on Spike.

"Most credible star" does need some explaining. I think Punk brought in an audience no other current WWE performers can. Basically: Cool people. Somewhat countercultural people, who might also have liked Fugazi. The people who don't watch wrestling anymore, and instead occasionally watch UFC. Where Punk has gone. The people, I might add, who did watch wrestling 97-01 ish. People advertisers have trouble reaching and would very much like to. People who would help make wrestling somewhat relevant again.

Are you really trying to claim Brock isn't a draw? By comparing shows he's on to previous years and coming up with another reason why the show did well if it's up, and ignoring that WWE business is declining generally year and year if it's down? And of course Rock is a draw. The man is a legit movie star.

Basically, if you plot UFC and WWE buys 2005 - 2014 one of those lines is going up and one is going down. Neither of us can prove that those things are or aren't related. My hunch is that they're quite related, yours not so much. Surely we can agree that wrestling generally has been in a slump. It's a lot harder to sell your fake fighting show when there is a successful and high profile real fighting show getting mainstream attention.

Similarly, your hunch is that TNA has been somewhat responsible for the wrestling slump. Mine is that it's been more of a victim of it. But you know, maybe the truth in both cases is somewhere in between. It's just when people start with the "Impact is worse than Ebola and TNA is run like a monkey house" line, people who have openly said they want TNA to close or people who actually own WWE stock, well, I feel inclined to point out that it's not as simple as that.

Nobody has said it would do well on TV lol.

Presumably it's on a case by case basis. Sid was also perma banned from the UK due to the bar brawl with Arn Anderson last time he was here, and he wasn't even convicted of anything related to that.

I still fail to see what that has to do with anything. It's like a Man United shareholder worrying what Bristol Rovers is doing.

If TNA was any level of threat to WWE you would have a point.

Strawman.

It was not argued that NXT should or could be wholesale incorporated into WWE television. Instead I pointed out that the simple and logic story progression used in NXT along with a clear and focused presentation of character could very easily and successfully be transferred to WWE television. Your argument about Raw being complicated makes no sense and has no historical basis in reality. Name the most memorable matches, segments, feuds and moments in not only WWE but pro-wrestling history and I'd guess 99% will be the result of simple logical story telling. Wrestling booking always and forever falls apart when bookers attempt to over think it or make it "complicated".


Its becoming clear you don't like to bother yourself with what people actually say. For example the use of the word effectively in my previous post was deliberate. If you were aware of what you were talking about you'd know that there is in fact a marked difference between the digital multi channels and the primary broadcast channels both in terms of perception and reach which makes them completely unsuitable for your USA/Spike analogy. I did however provide you with two more suitable examples.


Because it isn't a fact. At best its A selective and misleading half truth.


Except that's exactly what your ridiculous spin on the situation at Spike is suggesting. Not to mention the original reason this was brought up TNA's position on Destination America.


A slump in which WWE promoted their most successful PPV event of all time and in which two supposedly major promotions were on large widely available cable networks. I'd point out that part of the reason there's a "slump" is because TNA showed no growth. They are part of the industry not an innocent bystander. I'd also point out that WCW managed to grow during an apparent slump and in the process completely reversed said slump.


These numbers don't mean the same thing and it drives me absolutely mad when people quote them as if they do.

Yes it did and I know this because that's what the actual numbers and trends tell us not what TNA fantasy land tells us. When the product was good it showed brief signs of growth before TNA booking got in the way. The same is true of when they signed Hogan. Increased awareness led to people tuning in. The product was bad and they didn't stick around. TNA isn't on Spike anymore because after a decade of investment in the company Spike suddenly started asking why they weren't seeing any returns.


And after bemoaning unsubstantiated claims in the posts of others I notice no facts or figures here. Weird.


So to be clear I post actual figures and facts that call into question if not outright disprove the unsubstantiated assertion that Brock Lesnar is the company's biggest draw and you ignore them and refute them with nothing.


Correlation is not the same as causation. Also your lines would be somewhat inaccurate.


Because apparently no one watched boxing in the 80s or 90s...


No the truth is that TNA are partly responsible. They've been the number 2 company in North America with access to money, stars and a large television output for a decade (this doesn't get into their international exposure which is fairly significant as well). How anyone can argue that TNA isn't partly responsible for the state of an industry it's been a massive part of for a decade defies belief.

Okay I think we're descending into nitpicking & straw-man slightly. Basically, I think you're right about some things. We have both floated arguments at times which are basically impossible to prove. If my hunch that Punk was a key asset to WWE is impossible to prove, so is yours that TNA topped out at 1.1 because of bad product rather than market saturation. In both cases our views are just different interpretations of the same data.

BTW I should say that if TNA had stumbled upon a new way of presenting wrestling which grabbed the mainstream, of course they could have topped 1.1m. But I think they saturated the market for a wrestling show on Spike which was essentially RAW with lower production values. I don't accept that Impact has ever been substantially more badly written than RAW. The shows are two sides of the same coin, albeit with vastly reduced production values on the TNA side.

I shouldn't have said that Brock is WWE's biggest draw. It can't be proved. We can safely say he is a very, very big draw though. And his UFC run is a huge part of his credibility and bankability. Can we agree on that?

I don't think boxing and UFC are comparable. UFC is far more similar to what WWE would be if it was shoot, and hence more of a direct competitor. The various crossover stars confirm that. Yes you can point out Tyson appearing on WWE TV and Piper's "boxing" match, but those are hardly the same thing.

And finally, I've never said TNA bear no responsibility for the decline in wrestling. The fact they haven't hit on the formula to fix it despite trying so many different things is a shame, and definitely their fault.

And did you just say TNA have been "a massive part" of the industry? Because at other times you seem to claim TNA are totally insignificant. I'm not sure I would say they've been a "massive part" of wrestling. For me they've been a decent little show where people blacklisted by or undesirable to WWE can work, and without the somewhat stifling, safe, corporate atmosphere of WWE shows. But not much more than that, sadly.

The numbers in 2006 don't mean anything compared to 2014's numbers?

And why is that? Because you love WWE and you can't bare the fact that ever since 2001 WWE's popularity has done nothing but declined year on year.

What data? You haven't provided any for this view of CM Punk you've provided. It also isn't something that would be impossible or even especially difficult to prove or at least provide compelling evidence for either. You've suggested that CM Punk was attracting a unique audience to the WWE product and that only he was capable of drawing that audience it therefore stands to reason that without Punk that audience is gone. If that's the case it would show up in television ratings. Either in overall viewership or more likely noticeable in the demographics tuning in for the average episode of Raw.


Then I suspect you've not been watching Impact and/or Raw for the past decade.


I don't know that this can be safely said. I think it was likely true when he first returned to WWE television (driven largely by a curiosity factor if nothing else) but I don't think there's a whole lot of evidence to suggest that WWE have done a good job of maintaining that interest. The only Pay-Per-View he's been involved in that's had a noticeably out of the norm number was Extreme Rules '12, his first PPV back, and even then there are other reasons beyond Lesnar to think that number was inflated.

I'll also just add that I'm not sure this is down to poor use of Lesnar on WWE's part. I think it just speaks to the wider fallacy that is this idea that UFC fans and WWE fans have a massive overlap. Or perhaps more perfectly phrased the notion that people paying money for UFC shows will do the same for a radically different product.


What different things did TNA try? This is a serious question because with one or two exceptions their product has been at best a slight variant on the exact same theme for a decade now. A theme that was already run into the ground at that.


For better or worse TNA has been the number two promotion in North America for more than a decade at this point. As I mentioned previously they've had access to money, stars and (a supportive) sizeable broadcast partner not to mention an international exposure that very few companies can make claim to. This idea that TNA is just some niche little company doesn't hold up. I think they're completely insignificant in what they've actually offered the wrestling business over the past decade (which is why they're in the position they're in now) but to suggest they haven't been a major part of the industry doesn't hold water.

Because as I've said several times they don't mean the same thing.

The rating system hasn't changed since then.

It changes annually.

Well technically not the entire system I suppose just a component of it.

Fire up an old PPV and listen to the pop Punk gets. It's deep voiced; it's adult males. It's like the comically high-voiced "let's go Cena" vs the deep "Cena Sucks!". The demographics are literally there in the crowd noise! And ratings did drop as it slowly became clear Punk's departure wasn't an angle and he wasn't coming back.

Here's an article which disagrees with you about Brock: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...he-wwe-network

It does say that WWE are overpaying him though, which may be true.

I only started watching Impact when it came on Challenge. I resumed watching RAW at about the same time, TNA resurrecting my interest in wrestling after I stopped watching WWE in 2002 when On Digital went bust. When I came on internet forums I was honestly surprised that TNA had such a bad reputation. For me it was the more interesting, grown up show. Although don't get me wrong, I like RAW too. Both promotions have their ups and downs.

Things TNA have tried. Where to start? Hiring Hogan & Bischoff. Going dark and Russoesque. Going purist and wrestling centric. Going on the road. Coming off the road. Emphasising the X division. Playing down the X division. Having very short feuds and storylines. Having long, slow building feuds and storylines. Having monthly PPVs. Having only a few PPVs. Having Impact live every week. Taping blocks of Impact. Having a midcard title. Not having a midcard title. Firing Hogan and Biscoff. Having the X title as a weight limit title. Hiring more non-US talent. Having alliances with other feds. Having the x title as a triple threat title. Having a big name as champ. Having a home grown star as champ. Copying ECW. Having a little guy as underdog champ. You know, it might be quicker to list things they haven't tried!

TNA have actually made the most of their international exposure. They do very well in several non-US markets including the UK. They had money for a while, but not that much money. They were on a decent US network for a while, but not that decent.

But once again I say this: If TNA were so badly run and there is room in the wrestling market for a bigger number two promotion, where is it?

You need someone with money like Turner who can spend multi multi millions without missing it someone who is willing to take a loss for a few years while the name gets built up.

Someone who is also willing to put in the hours and make it their only consern and love wrestling and not just see it as a way to make money.

Maybe the disaster that is TNA has poisoned the water for anyone to take a chance with another promotion.

Wrestling is dead and has been for many years. No one cares about wrestling apart from middle aged people who still have fond memories of their childhood/teenage years and children who don't know any better, who you could tell till you're blue in the face that it's fake and means nothing and they would still sit and watch it and think it's real.


There will never be another boom period. Society has moved on. Pandora's box has been opened. Everyone know it's fake it's never going to go back to how it was, no one is going to give it the time of day anymore and that's just how it is. It's on life support and the ones keeping the machine turned on are those that can't let go of the past and the glory days of wrestling and children who get their parents to pay for Sky and live events tickets and t shirts. Society will never accept wrestling again or take it seriously again. It's had it's day.

And yet you STILL watch it lol.

Yes I watch it Hollie but i know it's never going to go back to it's glory days. People need to stop thinking that another company is going to compete with WWE, it's not going to happen ever again.

All the money in TV is getting ploughed into proper TV shows. That's where the money is. Wrestling hasn't even moved on from 1999 and to be fair it can't move on. THere's only so much you can do with simulated violence. There's only so many times you can keep telling the same story over and over again. It can't progress anymore.