PeterHilton

C'mon now..I think it's been established that the WWE doesn't "count" anything except what happens in the WWE.

Anymore???? When was it taken seriously to begin with? Also..you seem to be blaming crownsy, the viwer, for TNA's mistakes.

Exactly. Don't be dense TBF. If I say 'nobody watched Impact' that doesn't literally that NO ONE ON THE PLANET watched, it means the numbers are so small as to have no noticeable effect on the ratings.

MITB negates all that. It has for years now.

What he said.

Totally agree. But don't market it then. If you're a sports entertianment company then that's what you focus on. I think it does more damage to constantly brag about the X Division, 'we are wrestling,' and the Knockouts and then not deliver on those promises. Could be wrong though.

Ok..but so what? The women's division isn't important to the WWE because they know that - outside of a few exceptions over the years like Chyna, Trish and Lita to a lesser extent - NOBODY CARES! It's similar to the X Division...if TNA wants to brag about a segment of their product and how it separates them from the competition, then they should probably do a good job with that segment. That ending last night was strictly T&A...it was confusing from a storyline standpoint...and it actually made the title seem less important. You want the Knockouts to be more impressive than the WWE women's division: keep workers like Kong, do more with the Sarita/Taylor Wilde tag team, and bring in more workers like Hamada. It won't make a difference in the ratings either way, but it won't be WWE-lite. (you could take that whole example and use it for the X Division ...don't brag how special it is and then drop the matches down to the bottom of the card, hire a bunch of WWE cast-offs and run fprgettable storylines)

Naw..I was trying to grab TBF. Hang on. EDIT: I think it's just puzzles me that there are still nets fans that insist the key to TNA's success is the Knockouts.

Here's the thing: try and separate yourselves from the world of internet wrestling nerds. It's hard to do, especially on a board teeming with women's wrestling knowledge, and women's wrestling fans, and entire databases dedicated to women's wrestling..but the fact of the matter is that pro wrestling has been around for decades and really big time pro wrestling has always treated women as a side attraction. The people who follow, pay attention to, and are willing to spend actual money on women's wrestling are a tiny tiny segment of the over-all wrestling audience. Why? Because the majority of your fans are young males and young males don't necessarily care to see women as heroic figures or having leading roles in storylines. Unless they're hot. And if they're hot, the stories don't really have to be that good or the matches that exciting. Does anyone really think the Knockouts are getting decent ratings because of the riveting feud centered around a pet spider? or do guys just like to see big boobs in tiny outfits? What's more likely? Honestly? So unless they're going to ratchet the sex waaaaaaay up, the Knockouts don't have the potential to be the draw that the rest of the card can be. [For instance, when those buy rates come in for the next PPV, will more people buy for the AJ/Pope match or for the Tara/Angelina match I'm sure will be booked?] They're a nice little addition. But that's it.

I rather enjoyed the Orton/Swagger match.

Not to sound like too much of an ass, but nobody cares about women's wrestling. TNA presents a much better version than the WWe, and they have higher than average quarters, but it's insane to think that pushing the Knockouts as the focal point of the show will translate to bigger ratings. People who truly follow women's wrestling are a tiny portion of an already tiny wrestling audience ...the majority are looking for hot girls nad not much else. Keep the Knockouts interesting and strong; it really is a differentiator. But a 15 minute segment to close out the show? When you also had an Angle/Anderson match AND an AJ/Pope segment? That's nuts.

Wow..that's how they closed the show??? TNA has definitely decided to ride the Knockouts quarter hour ratings lol

This is a tightly written show...everything 'makes sense' even if I don't personally enjoy Big Rob or Shannon Moore The Knockouts stuff is meh but I think they've just run out of ideas with Kong gone.

No...not you too jester..

Sheamus' feud with Trips is going to do 10x more for his career then the title run did. Can we all get past the "he's being pushed down the card" thing?

You guys missed the attack on Trip while he was saying goodbye to HBK last week? This goes at least one more PPV. EDIT: Also, Unless Trips turns, they needs Sheamus to continue his main event run. Batista is supposedly taking time off which leaves RAw with a HUUUUGE need for heels. And even if Trips turns, Sheamus could work extended programs with Orton and Kofi...I'm not a huge fan of the guy but I don't think he's moving down the card any time soon. Out of necessity if anything.

I wonder when people go off like that if they've read any of the discussions in the rest of the thread..like..did they think this would be effective? Would this spark pages of good convo? Or is it that the boards at tnawrestlingnews are down?

Man...what happened to the quality cotrol in this thread lately? You're wrong. TNA is struggling. But it's realistically nowhere near being 'on its last legs.' Take a breathe. Relax. It's cool.

See..I'm not sure the DX stuff would've gone over as well if it weren't for the fact their gimmick is that they were a bunch of over the top obnoxious a-holes who hated authority so they took just as many shots at the WWF management. And Hyde...that video was f***ing awful.

You guys keep putting up opposing examples from other companies as if that makes it a good idea. A shot here in there can come off as clever and funny. But when you spend this much time and effort into attacking the competition - whether you're TNA,WWE, ECW, whatever - makes you look worried which makes you look bad. if your product really is better the viewer will figure it out. How are you going to win over possible viewers who switch over from the E by insulting something they might enjoy? All you're doing is playing to the hardcore TNA fanbase that's going to tune in anyway.

Wow...condescending much? Taking repeated shots at the competition makes you look like you're in second place. And desperate. By any standards.

It would be "for fun" if it was a fan putting out that video. But it's not. That's a promotional piece by TNA and by constantly taking swipes at the WWE and making up excuses like "oh the low ratings were due to HBK's retirement" they come off as bush league.

<p>First off, I think age is a non-factor in wrestling. If a guy can work his age doesn't matter. </p><p> </p><p> Hyde, if you think Daniels was perfectfor the current product, you haven't been watching TNA. That whole "we are wrestling" thing is gone by the wayside.</p><p> </p><p> He's a talented guy and was actually better than average on the mic, especially doing the Fallen Angel thing, but his time in TNA was up a while ago.</p><p> </p><p> For him, I'm happy. For TNA..meh, they weren't gonna do anything with him anyway. So no real loss.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="pate" data-cite="pate" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>CHRISTOPHER DANIELS UPDATE<p> By Mike Johnson on 2010-04-04 13:18:34</p><p> Since a few readers have asked, Christopher Daniels was indeed released from TNA this past Wednesday. He immediately contacted Ring of Honor and made the deal to debut at last night's Big Bang PPV.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Great move by Daniels.</p><p> </p><p> Hard to blame this on the current regime as TNA has pretty much wasted Chris for years (dropping the ball on the Fallen Angel/Sting feud, Curry Man, even recently failing to follow up after the Daniels/AJ/Joe match).</p><p> </p><p> When we were doing the "who should you cut" thing recently I actually named Daniels as a candidate to release specifically because I honestly believe his chance to be a 'star' in TNA had passed. </p><p> </p><p> I don't see him signing with the E; hopefully he does a few PWG shows so i can catch him live and makes a ton of money with ROH and overseas . </p><p> </p><p> A wonderful guy and a great performer. This is the BEST thing that could've happened to him.</p>

<p>I don't want to jumpm too far into this, but I really don't think lazorbeak saying that it's easier for bigger guys to get over or that's more prevalent is that much of a stretch. </p><p> </p><p> I mean..we can ALL name exceptions to the rule as it were, but we could also if we tried list hundred of guyys who's size was an asset and who - in fact - probably only had a job BECAUSE of their size.</p><p> </p><p> It's a part of the industry. It is. Bieing bigger helps in wrestler. Hell, it's a part of TEW. Wrestling nerds should just come to terms with it.</p><p> </p><p> It doesn't mean smaller workers can't succeed; it just makes it tougher. </p><p> </p><p> The one thing I did want to disagree with is this examplelazor used:</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="lazorbeak" data-cite="lazorbeak" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> I'm not really saying anything controversial here, so I don't know why people have a problem with this? To take a related example from another sport, anybody who knows anything about boxing can attest to the fact that heavyweight fighters generally aren't the most talented or the most scientific of boxers, but who draws the big money and attracts all the casual fans, Mike Tyson or Oscar De La Hoya? It doesn't matter that Oscar was a better pure fighter, people believed Tyson was a bad-ass and would pay money to see him.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Tyson was actually considered small for a heavyweight. He's a actually a great example of a guy who was intimidating because of his ring presence and performance made him a bad ass. </p><p> </p><p> And De La Hoya was a phenomenal draw and in fact was a bigger draw than Tyson over the length of his career. De La Hoya/Mayweather is the standard by which all boxing/MMA PPVs will be measured for years to come.</p><p> </p><p> I know your over-all point was that the heavyweights draw more than the 'more talented' middleweights classes (which is incredibly debatable in today's boxing) but the example was iffy.</p>