Stennick

Maybe the most FEARED Athlete but most iconic? Wow

Its kind of funny because if this was the real Monday Night Wars both shows would be taking advantage. For instance with TNA not having a new show for a week and a half this would be RAW's chance to really have a blow out show. For TNA knowing Bret isn't there this week would be a chance to steal some viewers with a heavily hyped show.

Thats right their head to head against the UFC tonight.

Isn't this the week the Psych guys are hosting? Bret won't be there tonight so I hope the rest of the show is interesting.

Really I figured I'd make this thread since my wife's been on vacation after the holidays and we've doing two things lately. One of which is watching a few movies a night. Rather than make a bunch of threads for movies that I'm sure plenty have already seen I figured I'd just make a catch all thread we can all talk about the movies we've been watching lately. Funny People - I saw it and it really wasn't that funny. It was ok but with Seth Rogan, Jonah Hill, Adam Sandler and others I figured this would be a home run knock out of the park hilarious. Instead it had its funny moments but really its supposed to be a drama and the story backdrop just isn't very likeable. Sandler's character isn't evil but he's certainly not likeable. Rogen's character comes off as kind of a loser himself. Jason Schwartz plays a somewhat minor role along with Jonah Hill but it doesn't matter since I didn't care for their characters as well. They got some funny jokes in there. The Die Hard jokes with the Doctor are funny and the stand up jokes they do are generally funny but nowhere near entertaining enough to be a drama and not funny enough to be a comedy. Zack and Miri - Another Rogen movie only this is Apatow's guys with a Kevin Smith script. The concept isn't bad, its made very obvious from the start that their broke and really with the title being what the title is its not a shocker when they decide to do what they do. Before the movie hits its peak its a pretty good movie. Plenty of jokes, likes of funny inuendo, then it hits its climax for lack of a better term and its all downhill from there. Its not funny hardly at all anymore and then the movie just races to an end without really exploring the second half of the movie or even pausing to make funny situational jokes about it. The black guy thats in Pineapple Express and Rogen are the funniest parts of this movie. Mewes is usually good for a laugh but instead of using him to play his sophmoric, childish, catchphrase riddled chracter they got him being a dimwitted guy with certain enhancements that make him vital to their objective. Although I appreciate the character Mewes was pretty uninteresting in the part. So two Seth Rogen movies and neither really did it for me. The Hangover - This movie was awesome. It took a basic concept of four guys out partying and the funny situations that come along with four guys partying in Vegas for a bachelor party and completely turned it on its ear and then turned the oulandish dial up to ten. I personally loved this movie and thought it was one of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time. Its weird how in all these movies I'm seeing the same guys. I saw Seth Rogen in two movies. I saw Jason Schwartz in a movie and then I see his co star in "Bored to Death" a funny HBO half hour sitcom in this movie. I don't know his name off the top of my head but the guy was money and completely made this movie. I saw Year One and although I wasn't expecting much I pretty much got what or maybe even a bit less of what I was expecting. I guess the science geek in me hated that these guys were cavemen and yet they were just rolling all through history at a pretty alarming rate. Placing Kane and Able at the same time as Sodom and Gomorrah. Aside from that it had its funny bit parts but towards the end the bits slowed and so did any interest I had in the movie. Angels and Demons I saw, I still have never seen Da Vinci Code. The book got so much hype that I didn't possibly think it could live up to the hype and praise heaped on it. Although from what I understand I do like the overall concept of the book. Therefore I figured I wouldn't see the movie. I saw this movie and it was enjoyable. It was basically National Treasure without the cool CGI effects and Vatican History rather than American History. The only thing I don't like about it is that the main character uncovers clues and like in National Treasure explains why and how he got here and a bit of the backstory behind it. National Treasure does this pretty well even if it is a downfall of movies that have to take time out to explain to the audience what their doing. That said this main character does it rapidly and doesn't really explain anything about these people and what it is their uncovering. Now of course I know most of the people but with all the ancient art in that country I wasn't familiar with most of it in the movie and got a feeling of being out of place and lost as they raced around the Vatican. That being said it was fun and enjoyable although I never got attached to any of the characters but still managed to enjoy a bit of a twist at the end. Anyway feel free to talk about whatever movies the rest of ya are seeing these days I'm in full on movie mode so something might catch my eye that I need to go out and see or someone else's eye for that matter.

I agree with you that becoming the top brand in an industry can help you. Just as it helped Ford and GM for so many years. My point was that if you don't maintain that brand then eventually it will not matter and you can go out of business no matter how big you are. I pointed this out because JWT had said the WWE is only still around because of 1. The Attitude Years (which I think I properly put that argument to rest with revenue numbers of the last couple of post attitude years). And 2. Because they are the name brand in their area. Which to a degree is true but its not like they have any real competition for that spot at the moment so its truly hard to say the WWE is successful because of being known as THE brand for pro wrestling. While thats true they don't have anyone to compete properly against for that spot. Comparing the WWE to Green Giant Veggies you have to at this point atleast compare TNA to Walmart Branded Veggies. When you have to look at the UFC as competition which is like saying that Green Beans biggest competitor is Corn that when you know you have a monopoly. Now if someone wants to make an argument that their the only Brand so there fore the most successful brand that might be a better argument to make. This is precisely my point. A lot of people in this very thread claim to not be big WWE fans, yet they still sell out pay per view venues. Take a look at top Sports and Recreation DVD sales UFC and the WWE are always on top. Other merchandise such as clothing, figurines, etc. sales not even UFC can touch them in this area. There are literally millions of people who not only love the WWE but will spend money on their product even in these hard financial times. Even in a time when virtually all entertainment products are suffering. Free Agency in sports, music deals, etc. their all either holding or less than they were five years ago. In this world the WWE continues to drive people to pay their hard earned cash. Thats why I say that if your for lack of a better term forcing people to hand you their hard earned cash in return for some momentary (in a lot of cases) entertainment then you truly have to be the very best at what you do. Remi may not think so, I may not think so, this entire board may not think the WWE is the best wrestling company in the world. They may not even call themselves wrestling however if you talk to a sales guy at Ford he won't say he's selling you a car he'll say he's selling you a FORD.

This is one thing I have to give TNA credit for. They work with Youtbue. Its great promotion for your show and really its gonna be on there no matter what. Do you want some fan boys that don't work for you and have no idea how you want your company representing it for you? Or do you want to take control of your own representation to a giant internet community. They do a great job of getting things up on youtube as well as their website, the WWE for all their media marketing greatness falls down horribly both on their site and on things such as Youtube when it comes to this sort of thing.

This is exactly right. It doesn't matter what I, Mr. Canada, or yourself perceive to be the "best" at anything. It matters when the majority of like minded individuals all decide. If this were not the case how would we ever decide who is a "better" person to be the president. In 2004 more people said George Bush was still the better person to run the country. I was one of the ones that did not feel this way however I had to accept that there was nothing I could do about it and the masses had decided that Bush was the better man even if my own opinion was different it didn't matter.

LOL yeah I'm not sure what applied mathmatics has to do with who was watching and who wasn't but more power to him. Again I find myself agreeing with PeterHilton. TNA's rating is always at the 1.0 mark so isn't it strange that it popped a .9 almost like as he said nearly everyone watched it again and just a few guys were like "nah I watched that on Monday". Rather than the theory that there were 500,000 fans out there that didn't watch it on Monday that watched it on Thursday. I just can't see 500,000 not DVRing and not watching but then tuning in on Thursday to see it for the first time. If that were the case they should pop a HUGE rating next Thursday if they got two million people out there that watched the show. I'll go out on a limb and predict somewhere between a 1.0 and a 1.5 for next weeks show nothing bigger.

Peter Hilton you and me are on the EXACT same page. You get what I was saying and I think you are exactly right. Like I said before your version of the "best" may differ. You and ten friends may say the best is something no one has heard of. However when 10 million people vote for something else as the best thats called mainstream success which over powers and over shadows thus making what those ten million people consider the best the industry accepted "best". I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you didn't do a single bit a research before you made that statement. You're saying that because of 98-01 the WWE is still in business today. Total revenue for the WWE in 2008 was 520 million compared to 480 million in 2007. I could go back farther but the fact is that its been said over and over again with things such as WWE studios, over seas tours and over seas television deals, merchandise, DVD sales from their massive library are nearly all profit. The fact is the WWE is a very well oiled corporate machine and no matter how much the IWC continues to claim the end is near for Vince and his merry band of failed sitcom writers their turning a profit some companies would kill for in this economy. In 2003 they made 375 million in revenue and in 2003 they made 374 million in revenue. To say that their still making money off of the attitude years is just a off the wall statement with zero research or fact to back it up. Pay per view buys may be down and he may not be making what he was making in 1998 but guess what no company is making what they made in 1998. I won't even bother going into you saying that the WWE is making money because of how long they have been around. Sure logetivity has its advantages. Your recognized as your industries brand in a lot of cases. HOWEVER at the same time 100 year old companies go out of business every year or are severely downsized. I did enough research. Ok I lied I just googled "big companies going out of business". It turns out Sprint/Nextel isn't going out of business but is veering towards bankruptcy. They are set to lose 4.4 million customers this year. Spring has been around in one form or another since 1898 and they have been around in mostly their current form since 1978. Thats about the time Vince took over the WWF in the early eighties and his family had been owning the wrestling business for the early part of the 1900's. So you see just because you have been around for a 100 years doesn't mean that people just automatically buy your product. If anything they become disenchanted and move onto the next thing rather quickly. Macy's, yes the parade, the department store. Macy's was founded in 1858, its generally regarded as the top department store in the country and one of the innovators of the concept. That being said they have 2.4 billion in maturing debt over the next five years. Goodyear tires, this is a company that should be ecnomy proof right? I mean after all you always need tires and I don't know about you but Goodyear is the brand I think of when I think of tires....goodyear blimp anyone? All of these companies are 100 plus years old, most of them are recognized as the top brand in the company in their industry and yet their all facing bankrupcy. So you see just because you've been doing something for nearly 100 years doesn't mean that your promised to always be doing it. So not only were your "The WWE is only making money because of the attitude years" wrong, but the "The WWE is only around because its always been around and so people are used to it" argument fails as well.

Acutually Sab Mytv is in 90 plus percent of homes in America since its network television. The reason people don't know this is because it shows no new programming its all syndicated television cept for SD. However Spike T.V reaches just around a 100 million homes. If what I've read is true there is 150 plus single family homes in America. I don't know if "homes" is apartments and other such things or just purely houses. None the less My T.V has a POTENTIAL viewing audience of a 150 million roughly. Now do a 150 people watch it? No but when calculating ratings you go with how many homes its available in. Viewers/Potential homes. So if Impact draws in a million viewers it'd got 1 million/100 million. So technically MyTV has more available homes but more people actually watch Spike. However the ratings aren't calculated by if people are watching your networked their calculated on who's watching versus who COULD be watching. I hope this clears it up Hyde. In America we have NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC, The CW and MyTV are the six network televisions that any home with a television can access. Then of course depending on your cable provider and your package you can access Spike T.V, USA, etc.

Thats exactly why it was a huge deal especially back then because there was no RAW or SD. It was Superstars or Prime Time just syndicated shows. Not too mention in the 80's USA didn't reach a 100 million homes. Hell I bet it didn't reach half that. So to get what four, five times maybe more of a potential audience was saying something. Come to think of it even Prime Time and Superstars were just squash matches with a semi good main event and lots of stars with promos. To take that format which reaches less than half the homes SD and RAW reach with their competitive match, soap opera content and still pull down the ppv's and business they did is very impressive.

Yeah most people don't know actually. Lots of people look at SD's low number and think that. They thought it when it was on the CW as well. Its just a case of being on two networks that are available in every home. So pulling in the same viewers as RAW pulls in would result in a much lower rating than RAW. Thats why I made the Superstars/Impact example. Impact drew 250,000 more viewers but lost the ratings by one tenth of a point due to Superstars network (WGN) being available in less homes.

Ten bucks for my name, another ten for personalized copy

Normally popular equals better. The biggest selling movies, the biggest selling musical artists. They get hated on for being "mainstream" or what have you but in reality if 100 million people like what your doing then guess what your doing something the majority of the public considers good. Since atleast in most countries these days the majority rule. So who should judge who the best is? The same people that judge everything else the majority. It might not be your opinion. Afterall all some people thought Palin would make a good VP so they voted that direction. They might feel like she would have done a better job in office than the people we have in there now. The fact is the majority of the people voted that McCain and her would not. Same thing with ROH and the NWA. People forget that entertainment has always drawn more fans than pure wrestling. People like to say JCP was close to McMahon before he sold WCW but truthfully McMahon was making money hand over fist if JCP was even close to Vince he would have been making more than enough money to NOT sell. Now you get the same argument with ROH (they used to argue it with TNA as well but now days even TNA's biggest fans struggle to argue for them being a better pure wrestling show). How many times do you hear that if ROH could get a t.v deal, or a pay per view deal or get seen by a national audience that they could become a thread to Vince. They might double or triple their business but then again maybe not. That form of wrestling has been dead since the 1990's. I'm 27 and I barely remember the Steamboat/Flair matches which really have to be regarded as some of the last mainstream "pure" wrestling matches. Sure some younger kids may latch on to the product of pure wrestling but for every 14 year old kid that likes it ten more are most likely going to be bored to death with it. I don't understand how if your the best which in itself is a judgment of people if your the not the most popular. If you and ten of your friends think ROH is better than the WWE thats an individual judment. However the minute we put that judgment to a larger scale of multiple outlets we would quickly see thats the minority vote. Individually we can think and judge whatever we want to be the best and it is the best. Its the best in our opinion. However to be generally regarded as the best I don't think theres any doubt you need the approval of the masses. I hear all the time people say "well Vince is holding so and so back". That may be but remember Chris Benoit? People said he was the best wrestler in the world bar none. Vince GAVE him the World Title, he pushed him to the moon. He beat HHH and HBK two of the biggest names of the past decade at Wrestlemania. Then he did it AGAIN the very next month. Both clean victories. Did this set the world on fire? Not at all. But why not if he was the "best" wrestler in the world and all he needed was a chance? We are all different people and all of our opinions matter the same. Thats why to truly get the feeling of who the best is in any area have to add up all of those equal votes towards the best and it usually becomes quite clear who the best is.....its who the most popular is.....because if your the most popular that obviously means more people have decided your the best. Its a perfect circle. That being said the best can change daily, weekly, hourly, its not a set title its a moment by moment thing. So yes I don't see how you can say the best isn't the most popular when obviously if 10 people say one guy is the best and a 100 people say another guy is the best how can you not concede to the majority? They don't have to be your favorite, or your personal best and you might hate them but as much as it sucks their considered the best for a reason.

Thank you I'm a stat freak so ratings, percentages, its kinda my thing

Just a quick reminder. Ratings for network t.v are different. Ratings are calculated by number of viewers divided by number of available homes. Therefore if your available in less homes then you need less viewers to get a bigger rating. For instance Superstars beat Impact during their New Years Eve Knockout Special. Superstars got a .70 to Impact's .69 Big deal right? Well look at this Impact averaged a million viewers while Superstars had just over 760,000 viewers. However Superstars is seen in fewer homes than Spike therefore they need fewer viewers to get a bigger rating. So even IF you can say 1.5 plus .9 is a 2.4 which is so in accurate. There is no way of knowing how many of those same people watched it on Monday night as well. If there is anything TNA has shown they have a VERY dedicated 1.0 rating fanbase. I find it very strange that they had the same number of viewers. That being said even IF you say that Impact drew a 2.4 rating thats still not enough to really be in SD's class. Spike is on 100 million homes to where as MyTV is network television and available in 99 percent of homes in America. So the ratings look close but in reality there are millions of homes that have SD available to them that Impact doesn't thus making the average rating lower if even more people are watching. The more obvious route is that SD is on Friday nights. SD is aimed at 18-34 males, I don't know about you guys but I'm gone on Friday nights. Heck I was gone tonight didn't give SD another look. So yeah Impact has a long long way to go before they get the viewers SD has.

What is 1.5 wasn't that their original rating for this? Are you saying that if you add 1.5 plus the .9 you get 2.4 and thats close to Smackdown numbers? its a great replay number. Like Cornette said next weeks rating will be the true test. No Fiesta Bowl, no BCS title game. If the fans come back next week as strong as they did the debut week or if they get an even BIGGER number then I'll have no choice but to say that whatever Hogan is doing is working for TNA and Spike no matter how much I don't enjoy their product currently. That being said if their rating drops I hope we're not met with a ton of excuses on why their rating dropped. People within TNA and TNA fans both feel this was a homerun show and if you hit a home run show with your biggest audience ever then it would make sense if said audience returns and with the replay being as strong as it is that to me says that they told their friends who chose to watch RAW to check out the replay. So now we'll see if fans are enjoying this or if they fall back to the dreaded 1.0. Honestly its weird that the replay did the number it did, I almost wonder if Thursdays may be whats holding them back from producing a good number. I say if this show does lower numbers put it on Monday night again and compare the two.

I still don't see what makes the match so great. The bright red steel makes my eyes hurt, there are too many guys in the ring to try and follow while forcing my eyes to see through the steel. Sometimes TNA tries to out gimmick themselves. I like it that they try to be different and sometimes it works. Ultimate X was a fun match. But Monsters Ball, King of the Mountain, Steel Asylum, these just don't really work for me. I for one would be ok with that and the six sided ring going bye bye. I like that they want to be different as I said but some things just don't work for me.

That might be but the Flair thing happened aftewards so I guess its just a matter of it Flair's reformation of the Horseman. Flair's thing happened on Sept 14th 1998. That show scored a 4.5 rating against RAW that did a 4.0 according to a few different websites I checked. On Oct 26th of 98 RAW did a 4.5 and Nitro did a 5.1. In the new year of 99 Nitro scored three 5.0 ratings out of four weeks in the month of January but RAW never did under 5.5 with 5.7 being their highest for the month. So it looks like to be that Oct 26th was the last time they won the ratings war in 1998. Now I'm going to head over and see what took place on that show.This was the show right after Havoc 98 where it was DDP/Goldberg and Warrior/Hogan. If you remember which I do because my parents bought the ppv the show cut out in the middle of the Hogan/Warrior match and we never got to see Goldberg/DDP. So this show airs the main event of Havoc in its entirety. The main event of this show is DDP/Hart where DDP wins the U.S Title. RAW on the other hand was the week after Austin made Vince piss his pants while forcing him to give him a brand new contract. I'm guessing Vince screwed him out of a match and it cost him his "career". The Main event was Shamrock vs. Austin in an I Quit Match. So yeah really you give away a match between WCW's two biggest babyfaces of the ppv caliber for free and you're gonna get a big rating and they did just that for their final win ever.

The night after Wrestlemania 14 is when RAW first one the night X Pac debuted, etc. I think the last time WCW won in the ratings was when Flair reformed the Horseman. Legend goes that people were tuned in for Nitro for whatever reason that night when the Foley comment tipped them in favor of winning the night.

It will be interesting to see if these "old guys" can pop a rating for two weeks in a row. If TNA's rating is higher for its second week than usual then I'll say "do whatever you want". However I would be shocked if Sting, Christian, Angle, Foley, Nash, all of these names couldn't move the meter much. I personally won't be watching but I can't argue TNA's business practice if these "new era" they have can continue to draw ratings.

The biggest problem I have with TNA is that yeah they put AJ Styles over in the last ten minutes of the show. The biggest problem I have with last night show is there was all this talk of the young guys yet someone point out to me where these young guys where? Beer Money? Abyss? Desmond Wolfe? Matt Morgan? how much mic time did they get? how much mic time did the Nasty's get? the nWo v. 4,567 got 30 minutes in one segment and then got to end the show as well. Most of these guys got thirty seconds or less on the show. Seriously did we even see Beer Money's faces? What about Abyss? Was the show the worst TNA show I've seen? Oh no its not that bad. But where are these young guys at? By looking at the Spoilers its the same group of guys again. Val Venis gets a match on Impact seriously tell me what he has that 30 guys in the back couldn't give out there. Couldn't that match be given to these "young guys" that I kept hearing about for weeks? Thats my problem was that Hogan promised a blend of vets that have been in these trenches before and the young guys and two weeks in I'm still waiting on the young guys. In the real Monday Night Wars you didn't get two weeks to get your show together. They want to declare war and spend so much time talking about former employers and defunct promotions. How many weeks should they get? WCW promoted Starrcade 97 as THE must see event. The show that big things were going to happen, the peak of a dynasty. They didn't deliver and three months later Vince stopped that 84 week streak Bischoff was on. TNA was better than RAW but thats not saying much since I haven't seen a RAW in years that I thought was solid top to bottom.

I agree with everything he said. You go frame by frame and TNA failed at every turn. Then I read the spoilers for the next show and there not any better so I'm done with TNA until the next change in power. The X division is so much of a joke I don't even think there is an X Division match next week. Atleast Bischoff in WCW knew that you compliment the old guys that can't go with young guys that can go above and beyond. TNA has told me for years their the alternative.... alternative to what exactly? Where is this highly talked about X Division? That division has been dead since Daniels vs. AJ vs. Joe in 2005. Its sad when you have all these guys on the roster that were hired specifically for the person to go at each other in that environment and their wasted. Then you got the Knockouts who have consintantly out drawn Kurt Angle, Sting, Nash and everyone else as far as t.v ratings per segment go. Again their different their women actually wrestle. Well I don't know how we could have known that when both of their matches were so short that to the common fan the only thing you can gather from this is that their women are less attractive that wrestle. I'm not saying that has to do with their wrestling skill but when you're given no time to actually show off your skills all that guys (who make up most of the market) are going to look at is well.....looks. Then you litter the show with guys from the Monday Night Wars. Seriously for weeks Nash said Hogan told him their getting the band back together. Nash then tells Hogan he said that and Hogan has no response? Like not even a "thats not what I said" or "you misunderstood me brother" or even a "yeah I wanna get us back together and lead by example for these young guys". Then you got AJ Styles who is what like a FIVE TIME champion in TNA? I mean seriously the guy has been world champion of your company FIVE times. You don't become a four or five time World Champoin of a company and still get talked about as "the future". I know its a different time but think about when Hogan, Hart, Michaels, Flair, etc were five time World Champions. Hell think about HHH's fifth time as World Champion, how many times has Kurt Angle been their World Champion? My point is AJ's great and he's shown that when he can be himself he's decent enough on the microphone but for heavens sake please stop talking about this guy like he's a 21 year old kid. AJ's 32 he's not a spring chicken anymore. You bring in Ric Flair one of the best promo men in the business. He was handcuffed in the WWE by writers (or I would hope so since I can't remember a single great promo) you bring in the greatest talker of last generation and you have him do what exactly? Stand around and do nothing the whole show? Shannon Moore got more mic time than Ric Flair. I won't even go into the whole dropping the ball on the Hardy situation. Hogan or whoever wrote this show would rather rehash 1996 than personally put the biggest star of 2008 in the ring and shine a real spotlight on him. I mean Sting was in the RAFTERS!!!! I mean come the heck on. Bischoff, Hogan and the Wolfpac were in the ring doing a huge promo, and Sting's lurking in the rafters. No this isn't a Nitro in 1997 this is TNA Impact in 2010. I won't even get into the heart felt promo by Jeff Jarrett to get cut off by Hogan and Hogan turns heel but in a face way on him? Seriously tell me that Hogan didn't write this show. BTW that prompted the second "B.S" promo of the night. The first came before they were a qtr hour into the show. The biggest show in the history of your company and ten minutes in your bleeping out the fans cursing at your show. Great job guys yeah you really know what you're doing. the nWo, Foley, Val Venis, The Nasty Boys, Ric Flair, these guys all got more face time than Matt Morgan who by the way should be being pushed as a main eventer and another future of this company and instead gets 30 seconds of face time. That brings me to my next point. Didn't Desmond Wolfe debut the very same night that they announced Hogan signing with TNA? If not then damn close. Why push Desmond out of the box like that and make him a big threat and a main event talking about bringing in someone else and then he goes from that to losing to the Pope last night. Now don't get me wrong I like the Pope but wasn't he just competing against Suicide and the like just a few weeks ago? He goes from that to beating cleanly a guy that was beating down the biggest star in the company a few weeks ago. Remember when Joe was treated as a big deal and a huge future star of the company? Yeah neither do I because that was five years ago. Seriously the only redeeming quality of this show was the main event. The Guys I like to see aren't going to be featured, everyone's worst fears are in place with 1997 being relived all over again. I thought maybe it was just this show but after reading next weeks spoilers it sounds even worse. I understand giving it a chance but as a writer if I pursue the same storyline for two straight weeks I'm then not going to suddently switch gears and focus on a whole new set of guys.....well I might if I'm Hogan/Carter/Russo/Bischoff/Who knows who else. I mean these guys realize that this isn't 96/97 anymore. They realize that by 1998 people were sick of seeing Hogan and his friends. They realize that the same guys in that ring right now were the same guys doing all time lows for the company in 2000/01 right? Didn't Hall show up DRUNK to a show a few months ago? So let me get this straight a guy can show up toasted to a show and just cuz Hulk says he's good to go brother he's good to go? Like Hulk's even seen this guy since 1999. At some point as the owner of this company who witnessed first hand what Hall was doing don't you say "you know what I can't allow him back in here after that". The guys had several chances with the company and he's blown them and yet he gets another one. This just reeks of a WCW move.....oh wait because he did the same thing with them. Atleast he actually MADE them money to get some slack. RAW was no better with me enjoying the Bret/Shawn and Bret/Vince promos and that was it. This was a night both shows had to show me what they were gonna be about. RAW is going to be about making sure I can't enjoy a single character. The guys I want to enjoy, Legacy, Kofi and some others they make sure and make as uninteresting as possible. I've been giving RAW chance after chance but the Gods honest truth is there isn't a single person on that roster that I care about. There isn't one match up that I can say "I want to see that at Wrestlemania". I think Jim's right its just time to find something else to do on Monday nights, or whatever night these two shows air anymore.

Well if Sting's contract is the same as it was when he started then Spike is paying for him. Of course then again if I'm Spike and their bringing in the likes of Hogan, Flair, etc I'm saying 'Hey pay you're own bills"