So which one are you? The middle aged one desperately clinging to memories of their childhood or the child?

I'm in between and at a stage where I watch it because I watch a lot of TV shows and I treat wrestling as a TV show and have for a long time and of course I will keep up to date with what is happening.

How did I know you would be the exception lol.

I'm neither here nor there. I don't think anyone that doesn't sit up and watch wrestling live actually watches the full shows. I don't think they exist. I think some of you will......but that's because you have no choice because you're watching it live. Everyone else skims through the shows.

Usos
Golddust/Stardust
New Day
Big Show
Authority


That right there^^^ that's at least a good 60-75 minutes of Raw that you DON'T need to see.

Punk gets pops so he's an irreplacable part of WWE? Nope not buying it. Show me facts and figures.


I'll read this and comment when I have time.


None of these things are actually substantially different from one another though and that's my point. Its all be slight variations on the same theme that doesn't work and hasn't for years.


This is a false equivalence.

Yeah you're neither here nor there because you always exclude yourself from the generalisations you make.

Meltzer posted a few weeks back Ted Turner was interested in starting a wrestling company in 2004 or 5 (his no compete with WWE for the WCW sale was 3 years apparently). He didn't because-

1. TNT and TBS executives weren't interested. He couldn't get TV. Even on the channels named after him.
2. His people were estimating $50 million in start up costs for a major, WWE sized, wrestling company.
3. Almost every major draw in wrestling was contracted to WWE, Turner would have had to start with unknown wrestlers.

These are probably the reasons there is no major number 2 brand.

What? Go back and read what I actually said.


You claimed TNA hadn't varied their formula. I listed 24 separate ways TNA have varied their formula. As to the wider point of wrestling generally not having varied its formula enough to try and make itself relevant again, I agree with you. But it's not just TNA, it's WWE too. It's the whole industry. TNA may not have varied enough to find a way to reboot wrestling (if that's even possible), but it's been a more varied show than RAW, certainly.


Explain how.

Anyhoo, I give Impact on Sunday 5/10. B+ player(!). Glasgow looked great and made me realise how much I've been missing a screen at the NY tapings. It's worth pointing out that Meltzer's supposed attendance figures for the UK tour were just garbage. Completely wrong. That guy, honestly.

The Grado and EC3 / Spud segments were the most entertaining for me. Actually I think it's the main event scene which is a bit boring right now. None of the rivalries feel very exciting. It's all a bit sportsmanlike and wholesome; there's no needle.

Aries / Roode was a great match as you'd expect. There was a lot of admirably logical storyline development (Aries tapping quite easily for example). Not as exciting as if there was an actual rivalry there though.

And BDC aren't the worst heel faction in the world. Unfortunately, that's The Revolution. Ugh

surerly the tna thread should be free from wwe fans with an axe to grind? come on people.

tna is ok and nothing else unfortuntley, downgraded now on DA. just dont know what business plan is. at least they still in existence however.

But who has an axe to grind?

You're like the ultimate Meltzer fan lol. You must really believe every word that comes out his mouth, let me guess, it comes at a price? I thought so. Always money involved.

So will the Wembley arena show be on this Sunday?

People in glass houses and all that.

I'd rather listen to someone who worked in the wrestling business for 23 years and worked side by side with people than someone who sits behind a computer and hasn't worked face to face with the people he talks about. You're paying money for heresay.

Melter worked for WWF as a talent spotter in the 80's

lol never understood fascination with dirt sheet writers.

oooh oooh i am negative and have inside news. i have no clue what entertainment is. follow me!

and they do!

You are confusing simple storytelling with simplistic storytelling. Austin vs. McMahon was logical and had a simple premise - but the way it was told wasn't simplistic. It weaved in an out over several years with a variety of other players getting involved at different times (The Rock, Foley, Triple H, The Undertaker, the rest of the McMahon family) and had a whole host of entertaining segments that went beyond what was traditionally expected EG. the beer truck.

Contrast with NXT - "I don't like you / I want to be the NXT champion" - "I don't like you / I would like to remain the NXT champion" - "WHO IS THE BETTER MAN?!" This is kindergarten storytelling. Don't get me wrong, the in-ring product is great, but the stories suck. There is no imagination in them at all.


No, you are backpeddling. You have said that SpikeTV is on a par with USA Network because it's in the same number of homes. The complete fallacy of this argument has been shown by the fact that BBC Three and Four are also available in the same number of homes as BBC One and Two yet have nowhere near the same public perception. Heck even compare Channel 5, another terrestrial channel, with BBC One. It doesn't beat it in the ratings. It can't beat it in the ratings because it is not perceived as a top channel. SpikeTV, likewise, is not in anywhere near the same league as USA Network. The ratings and shows all prove this. To argue otherwise is putting your head in the sand.


wCw threw ludicrous amounts of money to grow during a slump. What Dixie Carter spent was nothing compared to what Ted Turner did. Getting an aging Hulk Hogan on contract is not the same as pulling the top stars from the top promotion in the world. If Dixie had bought the likes of John Cena and CM Punk, then we can compare.

Would that most successful PPV event of all-time be the one where they brought back one of the world's top movie stars and the Attitude Era's biggest crossover star to beat up the golden boy of the current generation? You know as well as I do that WWE is still riding on the coattails of previous successes today. When that is truly no longer possible, we'll see what the company is really made of.

Which was that CM Punk is irreplaceable because he pop sounds deeper than John Cena's.


Or what I actually said was

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.

You then proceeded to list multiple variants on the same theme.


It hasn't though. Your mistaking fumbling around in the dark for quick cosmetic distractions as variation. That isn't variation when the product underneath is exactly the same. Bringing Hogan and Bischoff in for example had very little actual impact on TNA's product it just had a slightly different face.


Firstly its a false equivalence to argue that because someone has said TNA is poorly run and blown the many opportunities they've had there's space for a different number two promotion. Its not the same thing at all. Secondly its a false equivalence to argue that because something doesn't exist, it can't exist.


And others would prefer to listen to someone who isn't deluded and has a proven track record of having no idea not only of what wrestling fans want but what the casual audience wants.

(Alexi dont you get tired of arguing every day? cant be healthy

It's TNA, there must be arguments!

I take it no one actually knows if the Saturday morning show is on in the UK then? (Want to see Angle talk about Foxcatcher)

yeah tna always has arguments

first 7 or 8 years i used to defend them all the time from the "tna will be dead in 1 year " brigade who never to this day admit they were wrong lol

now i am not happy with dixie and current creative. unless they bring russo back i doubt i will ever be a big fan of tna again.

Austin vs. McMahon is the height of simplistic story telling so for that matter was that other big 90s angle the nWo (at least at the outset).

There's absolutely nothing sophisticated or complex about the way WWE told the Austin/McMahon story and in fact when you break it down its actually one of the most repetitive angles in wrestling history. They had a formula that worked and they just repeated it endlessly with ever so slightly different window dressing. The use of The Rock for example isn't sophisticated story telling. Vince McMahon can't fight Steve Austin every month on Pay-Per-View and so he needs a representative. That representative should be the polar opposite of Steve Austin because that makes their conflict straight forward and easily defines them in the eyes of the audience. And this use of The Rock is effectively the same basic model they used with Mankind before The Rock. Indeed its the moments of the Austin/McMahon saga where WWE attempted to be more sophisticated and complex that don't work – The Higher Power being the obvious example.


Only this isn't a remotely accurate representation of the NXT booking.

Kevin Owens vs. Sami Zayn has been one of the most effectively booked angles on any wrestling show in a long time that's not only brilliantly defining two central characters on the show but filled with compelling story. Prior to that the Zayn vs. Neville angle was an infinitely better example of a face vs. face conflict than what we're currently seeing on WWE television with Bryan and Reigns in that not only was it interesting it also did something to help establish and further the characters and pushes of both men (particularly Zayn). They've had Hideo come in as a much hyped foreign star who's subsequently been targeted by members of the roster jealous and angry about the level of hype he's been given. That's simple incredibly straight forward booking but it works to get everyone involved over.

I'd also point out that there's absolutely nothing wrong with treating your titles with meaning and having members of the roster actually want to be and remain a champion. In fact that's exactly what any wrestling promotion should be doing. And as the booking of the women in NXT has demonstrated it doesn't have to be anywhere near as flat and lifeless as you seem to be suggesting.


Or what I actually said

I'd also just point out that this woe is TNA argument rather misses the point that TNA are in a mess of their own making. They were founded nearly 13 years ago and in that time have promoted countless shows and had a television deal with a supportive network that's available in an almost identical number of homes to that of USA Network. That its failed to gain any kind of traction and is now relegated to Destination America is entirely its own fault and the terrible product that it has spent years churning out.

The point I was making is that TNA's many failures are not (as has been suggested) one of failure of opportunity or disadvantage. They've had a decade on a network available in the same number of homes as USA and effectively failed to move the needle in that time. At no point was the suggestion that TNA should have been equalling WWE's audience but rather that they should have been able to show signs of life and actually grow an audience in this period because they had every opportunity to. However rather than discuss TNA's failings you've chosen to try and spin the debate off into pointless analogies.

With that said let me also just point out at this juncture that Channel 5 is in fact completely capable of outing rating BBC1 (and has done so in the past) and that BBC2 is also completely capable of doing the same (and indeed has done so in the past).


WCW didn't reverse the slump by buying in top stars alone. It reversed the slump by offering a better product and growing an audience. I'd also point out that TNA signed Jeff Hardy and Kurt Angle. Two men who were hardly nobodies before departing WWE.


So you're going to ignore that this industry slump has had two promotions widely available on major cable networks? Also that WWE have promoted a whole string of incredibly successful shows during this period and shifted a monumental amount of merchandise? In truth the slump (in so much as it exists) has really only kicked in during the last few years and TNA should have been well established by then.

to be fair alexi when nxt did some great storytelling with zayne and owens you couldn't handle it and called it bad booking.

just saying.

No, I said the booking specifically of the finish was bad. The story they were trying to tell was perfectly fine they just didn't do it well and the story leading into the match was excellent.