Hyde Hill

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="MightyDavidson" data-cite="MightyDavidson" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>But WWE has gone there in the past haven't they? Hasn't at least one Diva, Ashely Mazzaro I belive her name is, been a call girl in the past? I'm sure several of Godfather's hos back in the day were hired from there in the past as well.<p> </p><p> As for the pictures, Gail Kim posed topless before she came to the WWE so I don't really see why this is an issue. Is there some new policy in the WWE against girls trying to be gainfully employed before they enter the orginisation? Or is it a rule that's always been in effect but only applied to women standing 6'8" tall or higher?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think Kim's pictures where in between her employment with the E and it had them overlooking it also had something to do with stealing the no1 babyface female of the competition. For the rest all the girls of the E who have posed in playboy at the E's request where eventually fired and some of them quit quickly after. Latest one was a girl ring announcer being fired when it was found out she was topless in a film pre WWE. Anyway they do have a double standard imho.</p><p> </p><p> If it was about being upfront about stuff like that then maybe they do not have a double standard but I do not have the feeling that is the case here. Still it's all speculation.</p><p> </p><p> Aloise next Knock Out! She can't be worse then Von Erich lol.</p>

Yeah it's been 2 weeks but TNA! And even if Impact doesn't find a new home TNA fans can get BT Vision which also has Impact and ppv. It all really depends on WWE's contract towards exclusivity pertaining the acquisition of extra networks and TNA's deal with Bravo and TNA's ability to find a new home. It will be interesting.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hyde Hill" data-cite="Hyde Hill" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>That won't be for long if true. And why do most get fired if they do pictures or have done them and others do not? Maryse and Kim (Topless).</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="SaySo" data-cite="SaySo" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>According to PWInsider.com, Lindsay Hayward, the 6-9, 240-pound woman given the name Aloisia for the third season of NXT, was actually dropped from the program due to erotic photos WWE officials uncovered of the giant grappler shortly after her television premiere last Tuesday.<p> </p><p> The reported reason of Hayward being pulled from the program due to being deemed 'not ready' is said to be a cover excuse.</p><p> </p><p> A set of photographs labeled "Tall Amazons Erotica" depict Hayward in a manner unbecoming to World Wrestling Entertainment's family friendly product. A number of the shots feature Aloisia positioned erotically, including nude. There are also images of the she-giant engaging pleasantries with a petite blonde woman.</p><p> </p><p> The storyline reason given for Hayward's hastily dismissal from NXT was that Aloisia had been fired by her Pro, Vickie Guerrero, after an argument over her influence. Guerrero will reveal her new Rookie Diva during tonight's season 3 premiere.</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Hayward currently remains under contract to WWE</strong></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hyde Hill" data-cite="Hyde Hill" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>That won't be for long if true. And why do most get fired if they do pictures or have done them and others do not? Maryse and Kim (Topless).</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> called it hehe.</p>

Hmm pwi where my numbers came from are generally closer to the mark then the Torch imho but nice to have the demographic info. So if Cole really quit then nxt will bomb for the final two episodes? Not that it will matter much.

No accounting for taste but after last week I thought it would bomb but it has actually gone up?

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>How many people watched Episode 2 of Season 3? <p> </p><p> The September 14 edition of NXT, featuring an obstacle course & a Diva Jokeoff, did a 1.01 rating with 1,203,000 viewers.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> What has gotten into people? They actually like the long drawn out diva contest? Or was there absolutely nothing else on tv?</p>

I would go with Orton going heel again as they don't know how to write for or use a heelish face any more. Still weird to turn anybody heel at this point as the rosters seem quite heel heavy especially RAW.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="PeterHilton" data-cite="PeterHilton" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Linsolv, I never said one couldn't keep up with what's cool. I said it would be hard to write to and specifically MUCH harder than doing a family friendly program<p> </p><p> <strong>I think ECW was a cutting edge program..but that was also the internet in its infancy.</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> I sense a return of Mr McMahon tothe TV screen</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Also to do with there being a larger and broader cultural movement at that time in pop culture so to speak. Counter culture, alternative hero's, Grunge etc etc. Stepping away from the squicky clean 80's.</p><p> </p><p> It's been a while since something like that has happened in my view. The internet may be partly to blame or the internet and more accurately social networking is that larger movement at the moment. But that is a whole other discussion.</p>

<p>Yeah I was also thinking extreme sports channel. Also depends on their deal with Bravo in case Bravo does get cancelled maybe the contract specifies that Bravo would still have to pay the rest of the contract. Anyway we shall see but given TNA's good ratings they should be able to find a new home. The question will be if they can pay them as much or give them as much exposure.</p><p> </p><p> Damn E with their exclusivity contracts grumble grumble lol.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="sabataged" data-cite="sabataged" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Well said</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> But either badly copy pasted or badly written:p</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Now if there was separate data available for their 18-29 male demo we could make some conclusions. While I know there is separate data for the 18-39 group rating's wise I have never seen that collected and averaged out over time.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yep totally agree on the need for data Stennick. Although WWE's stranglehold on wrestling is not as big as Window's on operating systems in my view they are a very strong near monopoly and have been a total monopoly from 2001-2006.</p><p> </p><p> (PS can you believe that Impact has only been on prime time since nov 2006 and 2 hours since okt 207)</p>

Ok it was more about that volume also plays a very large part in revenue. Can't disagree there and yeah it's between 10 and 50 percent in that example.

What eaygrat was talking about was the (in) accuracy of Neilsen numbers. While I agree with that. It does not matter so much as they are the industry standard when it comes to determining a show's relative drawing power -> popularity.

<p>Let's just make this real clear.</p><p> </p><p> First off all I am talking about the E's market share of total television viewers. Not their market share of wrestling fans.</p><p> </p><p> Second your relative share of the market determines your popularity not the total number of consumption.</p><p> </p><p> A quick example.</p><p> </p><p> Say you are in the candy selling business.</p><p> </p><p> At one date 100 people are able to buy your candy and 3 people do.</p><p> </p><p> Now at a later date 1000 people are able to buy your candy and still just 3 people do.</p><p> </p><p> This is a sharp decline in popularity and what I thought DJ was talking about in his 2.0 example then he is wrong.</p><p> </p><p> Now if at that first date with just one hundred people you only had say ten competitors and they where all selling 12-8 candy bars then your relative market share is weak.</p><p> </p><p> Now if at that latter date with one thousand people you had a thousand competitors and they where selling 1-2 candy pars then your relative market share is strong.</p><p> </p><p> If this is what DJ was talking about then he is right. As I already said with this:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Now the fact that due to diversification average market shares have gone down across the board does count if that is the case.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I am also not saying that volume does not matter when it comes to base numbers profit or that market share determines everything when it comes to base numbers profit just saying that a decline in relative market share is a decline in popularity and does effect </p><p> base number profits.</p>

<p>Yes total number of viewers is up</p><p> </p><p> Market share is stable or slight decline.</p><p> </p><p> Ratings cover market share and sponsors and television execs look for market share.</p><p> </p><p> I am not arguing ampulator's point and I agree with Stennick but just pointing out that just because the total number of viewers has increased or stayed the same does not mean that WWE has not lost popularity.</p>

I know that eaygrat but dj was talking about the fact that WWE's total number of viewers have not gone down. That does not matter as it is market share that rates popularity etc. The total number of potential viewers has gone up etc but the E has not been able to attract the same percentage of viewers from them as before. Thus they have declined in popularity.

<p>The more people argument does not hold as it is all about market share which is the reason they use ratings, WWE's market share has declined. Now the fact that due to diversification average market shares have gone down across the board does count if that is the case.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> The average ratings have gone down the last couple of years. Their fluctuation has staid the same but the average is down. Now if there was separate data available for their 18-29 male demo we could make some conclusions. While I know there is separate data for the 18-39 group rating's wise I have never seen that collected and averaged out over time.</p><p> </p><p> I do agree that the impact of UFC on the wrestling business is vastly over estimated by wrestling fans.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Jaysin" data-cite="Jaysin" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I know majority rules, but it gets kind of annoying when you hear "omg how can you not like Randy Orton?!?!" a thousand times. He looks stupid to me when he does that crap and he's just as boring in the ring as Cena to me.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Well Orton was also the IWC fave E heel for a while which has now cooled of and moved on to Miz. Who in my view has not gotten much better but just more accepted and the writers have given him better lines.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Linsolv" data-cite="Linsolv" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>$3.75 beer specials? Hot damn!<p> </p><p> I have to agree with Comrade, whose internet persona has forever been changed now that he's got a photograph and not what's-his-name the European Giant. There's no reason to change the formula. All the youngsters on WWE (Rhodes, DiBiase, Morrison, Miz, Nexus, Ziggler, etc) are getting the kind of pop that in TNA is reserved for main eventers. And I mean that by percentage of the audience, not number-totals.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Not true as the Impact zone is not much to rely on and the higher smark percentage at TNA shows. All these WWE youngsters so to speak are just getting a push because WWE booked themselves in a bind with NXT and because they lost Tista, Shawn and partly lost HHH and Taker who will leave soon.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="PeterHilton" data-cite="PeterHilton" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Monty looks his age. Unfortunately.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Neh just needs to get rid of the grey with some colour. Still looks in shape which is most important if he is ever to return. Hoyte + Brown though. TNA!</p><p> </p><p> And yes they are not a threat to WWE (yet) and the reasons are multiple including some out of their own control.</p>

It's bollocks but yeah. Bad news for Wolf. At least all the rumours about firing, bad booking and drugs etc etc where not true (as usual).

<p>Rumour has it that Micky James will return to TNA on the 10/7 live impact.</p><p> </p><p> <a href="http://www.tnasylum.com/2010/09/update-on-mickie-james-and-tna.html#more" rel="external nofollow">http://www.tnasylum.com/2010/09/update-on-mickie-james-and-tna.html#more</a></p><p> </p><p> As always with wrestling rumour take it with a mountain of salt.</p>

<p>Booker and Steiner only lost to the BI once and that was in a multi man tag match where Booker was carried out smiling by stretcher and Beer Money where the last eliminated after they had taken out Steiner.</p><p> </p><p> Agreed saba on the difference. With the adage that it is a star by TNA's standards. On Jarrett I was talking perception. The dude can still go but he is seen as being one of the "old" guys "legends" whatever you want to call him. He is not a true legend without the apostrophes. But being a co founder and due to planet Jarrett he is a TNA "legend" so to speak.</p>

<p>Sting put over Abyss and re established AJ as a main eventer last year. Hogan has put over Abyss and Hogan has put over the entire company although he has done some dumb stuff. The EV2 guys are all jobbing thank goodness but can't really put anyone over. Look like it or not Hogan is still a marquee name for mainstream media. As long as they minimize his on screen role he is a benefit to TNA.</p><p> </p><p> Angle yeah Angle is a machine he can make anyone look good and is willing to job to anyone. The three biggest "legends" that never put anyone over where Booker, Steiner and Jarrett.</p>

Lol, yeah I would rather see lito show up then the boring brother. Jeff has moved on from tag so it's useless to sign him imho.