when you are number 2 you can mention and go after number 1
when you are number 1 there is no need to acknowledge no.2
simples.
when you are number 1 there is no need to acknowledge no.2
simples.
TNA Wrestling on Challenge TV (Part 2)
190 of 248
Seibu for most of them they will be paying for Sky Sports so it's costing them money to watch WWE and then they pay £10 on top of that for the WWE Network. It's not cheap. £40 a month at least for your full Sky Sports package which you need to subscribe to the basic packages to get then your tenner on top of that so for a lot of them they will get their moneys worth. They will sit till 4am watching it.
And you're right to want to be entertained. I bet if WWE was on a basic channel over here like Sky One then a lot of people might not care as much. It should be on a channel like that because it's a TV show. You have every right to be entertained but I think what the problem is, especially in this country. You have a lot of people at various ages and all they know is WWE. They never grew up watching anything else so when they see wrestling that isn't in a big arena and doesn't have the big elaborate stages and it doesn't look like WWE then they just dismiss it because that is what they are trained to see. That's what they think wrestling is. Wrestling must have thousands of fans, it must have big video screens, it must have fireworks, they don't know any better and most will not give any other company the time of day.
I think TNA are just having fun like you said. ROH crept in through the back door, a lot of people were happy about this and were cheering for TNA to get dropped by Destination America, TNA outdrew them every single week in the ratings and Destination America drops them in favour of a Bigfoot TV show. What does that tell you? And out of all these weeks ROH was on this channel they never once changed their product. It's nothing but a pure wrestling product and they found out, just like Destination America did that not many people want to sit and watch wrestling matches for an hour. Maybe now they will realise why TNA got more viewers than them, because TNA had writers over the last 13 years that taught them the right way, you need to have variety on your shows, it can't be focused on matches and don't get me wrong Destination America are nothing special. TNA lost half their TV audience going on this channel that not many people can get in America but even with their small TV audience now, they still outdrew ROH.
It's like Bully Ray says, straight wrestling matches do not sell tickets. The last time people paid to see a straight wrestling match was Benoit vs Angle and even then that was because it was Wrestlemania, fans never had a choice. Shawn Michaels is an entertainer as is Triple H, they're not wrestlers, Bully Ray is an entertainer. Wrestling does not draw money, never has never will and that's where WWE falls short right now, they have a roster of "entertainers" trying to act out "wrestling matches" for 10,15 minutes at a time. The audience reflects that. That's not what people want from a wrestling show hence why TNA always outdrew ROH, the ratings were never even close. The reason being? ROH is a wrestling show. TNA is a television show.
And you're right to want to be entertained. I bet if WWE was on a basic channel over here like Sky One then a lot of people might not care as much. It should be on a channel like that because it's a TV show. You have every right to be entertained but I think what the problem is, especially in this country. You have a lot of people at various ages and all they know is WWE. They never grew up watching anything else so when they see wrestling that isn't in a big arena and doesn't have the big elaborate stages and it doesn't look like WWE then they just dismiss it because that is what they are trained to see. That's what they think wrestling is. Wrestling must have thousands of fans, it must have big video screens, it must have fireworks, they don't know any better and most will not give any other company the time of day.
I think TNA are just having fun like you said. ROH crept in through the back door, a lot of people were happy about this and were cheering for TNA to get dropped by Destination America, TNA outdrew them every single week in the ratings and Destination America drops them in favour of a Bigfoot TV show. What does that tell you? And out of all these weeks ROH was on this channel they never once changed their product. It's nothing but a pure wrestling product and they found out, just like Destination America did that not many people want to sit and watch wrestling matches for an hour. Maybe now they will realise why TNA got more viewers than them, because TNA had writers over the last 13 years that taught them the right way, you need to have variety on your shows, it can't be focused on matches and don't get me wrong Destination America are nothing special. TNA lost half their TV audience going on this channel that not many people can get in America but even with their small TV audience now, they still outdrew ROH.
It's like Bully Ray says, straight wrestling matches do not sell tickets. The last time people paid to see a straight wrestling match was Benoit vs Angle and even then that was because it was Wrestlemania, fans never had a choice. Shawn Michaels is an entertainer as is Triple H, they're not wrestlers, Bully Ray is an entertainer. Wrestling does not draw money, never has never will and that's where WWE falls short right now, they have a roster of "entertainers" trying to act out "wrestling matches" for 10,15 minutes at a time. The audience reflects that. That's not what people want from a wrestling show hence why TNA always outdrew ROH, the ratings were never even close. The reason being? ROH is a wrestling show. TNA is a television show.
Only hazy would mock people for actually paying to watch wrestling. I know it's pretty alien these days to TNA that you charge for your product but it's actually the done thing for most wrestling companies.
The ratings were a lot closer, a hell of a lot closer, than they ever should have been.
The ratings were a lot closer, a hell of a lot closer, than they ever should have been.
Hazy, yeah I've always enjoyed non-WWE wrestling, just because it was often a lot more random. Like good old WCW Worldwide on ITV!
I like WWE too though, within reason. But I feel it's lost that 'anything can happen' quality which wrestling has to have.
I think wrestling has to be a silly, scuzzy, unpredictable, radical, kind of disreputable thing. At least for me. Slick sanitised corporate wrestling just loses too much. Obviously not everyone agrees though!
I like WWE too though, within reason. But I feel it's lost that 'anything can happen' quality which wrestling has to have.
I think wrestling has to be a silly, scuzzy, unpredictable, radical, kind of disreputable thing. At least for me. Slick sanitised corporate wrestling just loses too much. Obviously not everyone agrees though!
yeah no doubt wwe is as bland as it gets most weeks.
but is tna much better? i like than tna try to be creative(wwe dont even try) but they fail most weeks too.
yes you need tht anything can happen feeling,but you also need good lighting so that you can bloody see what IS happening!
but is tna much better? i like than tna try to be creative(wwe dont even try) but they fail most weeks too.
yes you need tht anything can happen feeling,but you also need good lighting so that you can bloody see what IS happening!
Originally Posted by Hollie_Louise:
“Only hazy would mock people for actually paying to watch wrestling. I know it's pretty alien these days to TNA that you charge for your product but it's actually the done thing for most wrestling companies.
The ratings were a lot closer, a hell of a lot closer, than they ever should have been.”
“Only hazy would mock people for actually paying to watch wrestling. I know it's pretty alien these days to TNA that you charge for your product but it's actually the done thing for most wrestling companies.
The ratings were a lot closer, a hell of a lot closer, than they ever should have been.”
True and it's about what you are willing to pay for.
I will pay for what I think is worth it.
WWE
ROH
NJPW.
AAA.
CMLL.
Shimmer.
And more are all companies I do or would pay to watch.
TNA is just not worth any money at all small indies put out better stuff.
I admit if it wasn't on free TV I wouldn't even waste time and disk space in downloading it free.
Originally Posted by Hollie_Louise:
“Every time you bring up the financial interest in WWE you end up apologising for it and saying you regret doing it, you obviously don't regret doing it because you keep doing it.
If you think a company should do stupid stuff even if it harms the company, you're crazy. Like I said, I'm not against WWE actively mocking TNA, I encourage it. The possibilities for material are endless. At least then you and Dixie would have something to actually show any evidence of TNA being damaged by WWE.”
“Every time you bring up the financial interest in WWE you end up apologising for it and saying you regret doing it, you obviously don't regret doing it because you keep doing it.
If you think a company should do stupid stuff even if it harms the company, you're crazy. Like I said, I'm not against WWE actively mocking TNA, I encourage it. The possibilities for material are endless. At least then you and Dixie would have something to actually show any evidence of TNA being damaged by WWE.”
What would be the point in wwe mocking TNA? Its not like they will ever be on par.
Originally Posted by seibu:
“A witty, funny dig at TNA by WWE would be great and I'd like to see it. They'd never do it though because the current WWE management & culture is too conservative.”
“A witty, funny dig at TNA by WWE would be great and I'd like to see it. They'd never do it though because the current WWE management & culture is too conservative.”
Or they'd never do it because it would serve absolutely no purpose.
Quote:
“And it would help TNA because TNA's main problem is that 90% of WWE fans don't know or barely know TNA exists. Plus wrestling is an ecosystem - note how Impact ratings used to benefit in the runup to Wrestlemania.”
“And it would help TNA because TNA's main problem is that 90% of WWE fans don't know or barely know TNA exists. Plus wrestling is an ecosystem - note how Impact ratings used to benefit in the runup to Wrestlemania.”
So now you're saying that not only is WWE the cause of TNA's problems they're the solution as well? If only WWE would advertise TNA on their shows...
Originally Posted by seibu:
“Acknowledging that WWE are the bigger company is not saying "we suck". It's acknowledging reality. There's tonnes of comedy potential in it. I haven't actually seen that bit with HHH and McMahon masks but it sounds ace.
There's a lot to be said for acknowledging you're an underdog. It's nothing like saying 'we suck'.”
“Acknowledging that WWE are the bigger company is not saying "we suck". It's acknowledging reality. There's tonnes of comedy potential in it. I haven't actually seen that bit with HHH and McMahon masks but it sounds ace.
There's a lot to be said for acknowledging you're an underdog. It's nothing like saying 'we suck'.”
There is however a difference between acknowledging you're an underdog and presenting yourself as inferior. I would suggest that TNA has a history of doing the latter not the former. Although I would add that positioning yourself as an underdog isn't the greatest strategy either at least not for TNA given what I assume their end goal was.
Quote:
“And I already pointed out that WWE gain nothing from acknowledging TNA.”
“And I already pointed out that WWE gain nothing from acknowledging TNA.”
So why would they do it? On the off chance you might find it entertaining (but in reality would probably spend weeks complaining about WWE burying TNA)?
Quote:
“TNA gain nothing from acknowledging RoH, but they do it anyway because it's entertaining.”
“TNA gain nothing from acknowledging RoH, but they do it anyway because it's entertaining.”
How is acknowledging RoH entertaining or improving the TNA product?
Originally Posted by whedon247:
“when you are number 2 you can mention and go after number 1
when you are number 1 there is no need to acknowledge no.2
simples.”
“when you are number 2 you can mention and go after number 1
when you are number 1 there is no need to acknowledge no.2
simples.”
Indeed.
Originally Posted by dave_windows:
“What would be the point in wwe mocking TNA? Its not like they will ever be on par.”
“What would be the point in wwe mocking TNA? Its not like they will ever be on par.”
There is no point in doing it but apparently it would help TNA. I don't believe it will help TNA to have the global leader in its industry pointing and laughing at it
Originally Posted by hazydayz:
“And you're right to want to be entertained. I bet if WWE was on a basic channel over here like Sky One then a lot of people might not care as much.”
“And you're right to want to be entertained. I bet if WWE was on a basic channel over here like Sky One then a lot of people might not care as much.”
Yes hazy its the channel WWE is on and not the company itself that people really care about.
Quote:
“You have every right to be entertained”
“You have every right to be entertained”
Is someone suggesting he doesn't?
Quote:
“You have a lot of people at various ages and all they know is WWE. They never grew up watching anything else so when they see wrestling that isn't in a big arena and doesn't have the big elaborate stages and it doesn't look like WWE then they just dismiss it because that is what they are trained to see. That's what they think wrestling is. Wrestling must have thousands of fans, it must have big video screens, it must have fireworks, they don't know any better and most will not give any other company the time of day.”
“You have a lot of people at various ages and all they know is WWE. They never grew up watching anything else so when they see wrestling that isn't in a big arena and doesn't have the big elaborate stages and it doesn't look like WWE then they just dismiss it because that is what they are trained to see. That's what they think wrestling is. Wrestling must have thousands of fans, it must have big video screens, it must have fireworks, they don't know any better and most will not give any other company the time of day.”
More hazy knows best nonsense I see which by the way is completely contradicted a few sentences later by people being happy RoH got a TV deal.
Quote:
“And out of all these weeks ROH was on this channel they never once changed their product.”
“And out of all these weeks ROH was on this channel they never once changed their product.”
Shock horror! Wrestling company with established brand and product doesn't change everything about itself when its already syndicated show is picked up by a cable network!
Quote:
“Maybe now they will realise why TNA got more viewers than them”
“Maybe now they will realise why TNA got more viewers than them”
Because TNA has a decade of exposure on a major cable network and probably should be comfortably out drawing the company who haven't had a decade of national exposure?
Quote:
“because TNA had writers over the last 13 years that taught them the right way”
“because TNA had writers over the last 13 years that taught them the right way”
LOL!
I assume this is a joke.
Quote:
“It's like Bully Ray says, straight wrestling matches do not sell tickets. The last time people paid to see a straight wrestling match was Benoit vs Angle and even then that was because it was Wrestlemania, fans never had a choice.”
“It's like Bully Ray says, straight wrestling matches do not sell tickets. The last time people paid to see a straight wrestling match was Benoit vs Angle and even then that was because it was Wrestlemania, fans never had a choice.”
Wait... are you arguing that Benoit vs. Angle was the big draw for Mania 17?
Quote:
“Shawn Michaels is an entertainer as is Triple H, they're not wrestlers”
“Shawn Michaels is an entertainer as is Triple H, they're not wrestlers”
They're not wrestlers? Well I guess Michaels probably should have call his book "Entertaining for My Life". Do you think its too late to change the title?
Quote:
“Bully Ray is an entertainer.”
“Bully Ray is an entertainer.”
He is?
Quote:
“Wrestling does not draw money never has never will”
“Wrestling does not draw money never has never will”
Yeah who's ever paid to see a wrestling match? Its not like there have been years of monthly Pay-Per-Views where people have paid to see wrestling. And no one buys tickets for wrestling shows with the expectation of seeing wrestling. I don't even know why companies still put wrestling matches on. Think how much easier the WWE schedule could be if their live events just consisted of the roster standing in the ring cutting promos or I don't know playing chess. Its not like fans would care either because no one is paying to see wrestling or anything.
Originally Posted by whedon247:
“when you are number 2 you can mention and go after number 1
when you are number 1 there is no need to acknowledge no.2
simples.”
“when you are number 2 you can mention and go after number 1
when you are number 1 there is no need to acknowledge no.2
simples.”
Isn't ROH number 2 now in the US?
Not that it matters anyway.
Originally Posted by DejaVoodoo:
“Isn't ROH number 2 now in the US?
Not that it matters anyway.”
“Isn't ROH number 2 now in the US?
Not that it matters anyway.”
Not quite yet it's still TNA (although ROH is far better in everyway) but when TNA dies ROH will be on 2
I want to be entertained by good, logical stories with great matches to conclude them, not shooty-shoot-shoot nonsense and in-jokes. Having endless WWE rejects etc. coming in and burying TNA and it's stars (AJ, Joe etc.) for not being a big deal, not having beaten anyone and not being stars is totally self-burial and it's been done by TNA time and again in the past.
your lucky you didnt grow up through wwf attitude era! it wa svery shootesque!
*wwf was name of wwe before 2002 when world wildlife fund sued them to change name.
*wwf was name of wwe before 2002 when world wildlife fund sued them to change name.
Originally Posted by whedon247:
“your lucky you didnt grow up through wwf attitude era! it wa svery shootesque!”
“your lucky you didnt grow up through wwf attitude era! it wa svery shootesque!”
It really wasn't.
(Not very anyway)
Originally Posted by whedon247:
“your lucky you didnt grow up through wwf attitude era! it wa svery shootesque!
*wwf was name of wwe before 2002 when world wildlife fund sued them to change name.”
“your lucky you didnt grow up through wwf attitude era! it wa svery shootesque!
*wwf was name of wwe before 2002 when world wildlife fund sued them to change name.”
WHAT? WWE hasn't always been called WWE?
Originally Posted by Hollie_Louise:
“WHAT? WWE hasn't always been called WWE?”
“WHAT? WWE hasn't always been called WWE?”
nope. used to be world wrestling federation, now its world wrestling entertainment.
Originally Posted by Hollie_Louise:
“WHAT? WWE hasn't always been called WWE?”
“WHAT? WWE hasn't always been called WWE?”
No it used to be the CWC-- Capitol Wrestling Corporation and then it was WWWF World Wide Wrestling Federation.
Originally Posted by whedon247:
“nope. used to be world wrestling federation, now its world wrestling entertainment.”
“nope. used to be world wrestling federation, now its world wrestling entertainment.”
Well I never knew that.
Originally Posted by James Frederick:
“Not quite yet it's still TNA (although ROH is far better in everyway) but when TNA dies ROH will be on 2”
“Not quite yet it's still TNA (although ROH is far better in everyway) but when TNA dies ROH will be on 2”
ROH is already beating TNA in every measurable indicator. TV ratings, PPV buys, ticket sales, house show attendance and merchandise.
Granted, TV ratings are a bit unfair, considering ROH is available on multiple channels in the US.
Regardless, it doesn't matter as WWE are so far ahead of both it's not even a contest.
Originally Posted by whedon247:
“showing my age i guess.”
“showing my age i guess.”
Either that or an inability to register sarcasm.
Oh come on Alexi! 
As usual we don't really disagree about anything other than emphasis. I totally said that WWE can't benefit from referencing TNA. My point was that that's boring.
Frequently that's the problem with modern WWE: What's truly best for business is frequently boring. And I'm a viewer, not a shareholder.
As a public company WWE are legally obliged to maximise revenue for shareholders, and usually that means taking conservative creative decisions. If WWF buying WCW was the worst thing to ever happen to pro wrestling, WWE floating was the second worst. Shareholders make sense for a gas company or something. But a wrestling company? A quasi-pretend entertainment / sport company? It could only ever result in a financially sound but creatively moribund entity, and that's exactly what we've got.
Oh, and it's completely a matter of opinion whether TNA's references to WWE were 'we're an underdog' or 'we suck'. But being hyper-critical of TNA is the 'net's default position.
As usual we don't really disagree about anything other than emphasis. I totally said that WWE can't benefit from referencing TNA. My point was that that's boring.Frequently that's the problem with modern WWE: What's truly best for business is frequently boring. And I'm a viewer, not a shareholder.
As a public company WWE are legally obliged to maximise revenue for shareholders, and usually that means taking conservative creative decisions. If WWF buying WCW was the worst thing to ever happen to pro wrestling, WWE floating was the second worst. Shareholders make sense for a gas company or something. But a wrestling company? A quasi-pretend entertainment / sport company? It could only ever result in a financially sound but creatively moribund entity, and that's exactly what we've got.
Oh, and it's completely a matter of opinion whether TNA's references to WWE were 'we're an underdog' or 'we suck'. But being hyper-critical of TNA is the 'net's default position.
190 of 248
