NickC13573 Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 from TNAWRESTLINGNEWS.com TNA can finally lay claim to iMPACT! beating Raw & SmackDown in the ratings, at least in Australia. In its second week in Australia, TNA iMPACT! garnered 43,000 viewers, compared to SmackDown with 36,000 & Raw with 38,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franchise22 Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 way to reach for a victory. i knew there was no way they could beat raw. i came into this thread expecting unexpected and interesting news. i was decieved. fail ;) besides, TNA is the WWE's 4th brand at this point. hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest loves2spooge Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 i still havent watched it on fox 8 might this sat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Gadzinski Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 I've known about this for over a week now.. Still great news that the Aussies hate WWE even more than we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDE71 Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Just goes to show how dumb us Americans are..... Well at least the ones who watch WWE.... Which is me every now an then.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tristram Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Good news, I've been watching Impact down under and have been really impressed. Last week's show was I thought really well thought out, good wrestling, good segments. The only annoying thing is the Super Eric thing, it seems they want to use a bit of comedy and with that use those belts as props which I'm not a fan of. Big fan here of Black Machismo and Velvet Sky. VS is HOTTTTT and Black Machismo, man he plays Savage so well :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basmat01 Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 [QUOTE=Tyler Gadzinski;410474]I've known about this for over a week now.. Still great news that the Aussies hate WWE even more than we do.[/QUOTE] I wouldnt say that WWE shows are on at 3.30 pm in the afternoon and TNA and WWE are on the same channel if TNA was up against WWE here WWE would smash them..... Besides its Pay TV they couldnt give a *hit about ratings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Gadzinski Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 I did not know that WWE was on at 330pm which is horrible for them as most people are either in school or at work at that time. Still a victory none-the-less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tristram Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 We have a +2 hour channel for it though, so the 3:30 shows become 5:30PM shows, and then they're both replayed at midday and 2PM Saturday and Sunday. So WWE gets unreal coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Humanoid Typhoon Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 When you have to brag that TNA got a win in a country that doesn't even matter in the grand scheme of things, you shouldn't be cheering. You need to ask why TNA sucks so much that this is a big deal to you. Furthermore, I'd really wonder how they took a great idea like Money in the Bank and turned into that Feast or Fired BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AfRoMaN36 Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 [QUOTE=The Humanoid Typhoon;410897]When you have to brag that TNA got a win in a country that doesn't even matter in the grand scheme of things[/QUOTE] *sigh* .... *Ducks for cover* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tristram Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 [QUOTE=The Humanoid Typhoon;410897]When you have to brag that TNA got a win in a country that doesn't even matter in the grand scheme of things, you shouldn't be cheering. You need to ask why TNA sucks so much that this is a big deal to you. Furthermore, I'd really wonder how they took a great idea like Money in the Bank and turned into that Feast or Fired BS.[/QUOTE] You'd be an able assistant to Hillary Clinton's campaign. You know, the jokes about the ex New Zealand Prime Minister that oh shall we say is still in power and was in a meeting with her husband two weeks ago. Of course, after Ed Hillary's death (RIP legend) she goes off and says she was named after Hillary... strangely enough he came to fame 5 years after her birth when he conquered Everest. Your lack of acknowledgement for other world countries would fit well into her regime. Go Obama. Go TNA in Australia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ransik Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 [QUOTE=The Humanoid Typhoon;410897]When you have to brag that TNA got a win in a country that doesn't even matter in the grand scheme of things, you shouldn't be cheering. You need to ask why TNA sucks so much that this is a big deal to you. Furthermore, I'd really wonder how they took a great idea like Money in the Bank and turned into that Feast or Fired BS.[/QUOTE] Two people I talk to that live in Australia were refusing to watch it, and when I told to give it one chance... they loved it. Just because you don't like it and think it's meaningless means nothing. Impact has beaten ECW before in the US.. and the same tired argument was made; "It doesn't count because it wasn't RAW or Smackdown. Now it just doesn't matter because it wasn't a US compiled rating? Can't win huh? Furthermore I think Feast or Fired is a much better idea, they just executed it very poorly. I'd rather see 4 briefcases with a chance for all 3 Titles in them rather than seeing one briefcase over 3 World Titles. I just honestly don't care about MITB because the company has three World Championships and it doesn't make them look meaningful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebsplex Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Eh, if I were TNA I'd be more concerned about their ratings in the US... specifically why they've developed a pattern where their numbers for Impact drop after the first quarter every week. Seems to suggest that whilst people keep coming back to check out Impact, the early content isn't keeping a significant portion of them around and if TNA really want to gain ground on the WWE, they need to snare these viewers rather than inflicting things like a Scott Steiner 'Joe is fat, Joe eats cheeseburgers' promo on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Humanoid Typhoon Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 [quote=tristram;410903]You know, the jokes about the ex New Zealand Prime Minister that oh shall we say is still in power and was in a meeting with her husband two weeks ago. Of course, after Ed Hillary's death (RIP legend) she goes off and says she was named after Hillary... strangely enough he came to fame 5 years after her birth when he conquered Everest. Your lack of acknowledgement for other world countries would fit well into her regime.[/quote]Why do you speak political and irrelevant things to me? [quote=Ransik;410908]Two people I talk to that live in Australia were refusing to watch it, and when I told to give it one chance... they loved it. Just because you don't like it and think it's meaningless means nothing. Impact has beaten ECW before in the US.. and the same tired argument was made; "It doesn't count because it wasn't RAW or Smackdown. Now it just doesn't matter because it wasn't a US compiled rating? Can't win huh?[/quote]Whether are not you find the point tired does not change that it's far more relevant than anything you could possibly type to counter it. TNA beating ECW on ONE occasion was not the result of iMPACT's rise, but ECW's decline. WWE has been treating like it a developmental televised show since Lashley became champion. Vince McMahon didn't give a damn when that news came out. Nothing changed on ECW. Thus, it was meaningless. WWE has shown they only give a damn about their time slots in two areas, America and Canada. Therefore, Austrailia is indeed inconsequential. If you honestly think McMahon was pulling his hair out and yelling at people because TNA scored higher in Australia, you need to check yourself into the looney bin because if you feel otherwise then I'm right. So, either I'm right or you're nuts. Honestly, how many shows has Vince McMahon run in Australia in the past five years? He doesn't care nor should he. Austrailia is 53rd in the world's population. [quote=Ransik;410908]Furthermore I think Feast or Fired is a much better idea, they just executed it very poorly. I'd rather see 4 briefcases with a chance for all 3 Titles in them rather than seeing one briefcase over 3 World Titles. I just honestly don't care about MITB because the company has three World Championships and it doesn't make them look meaningful.[/quote]And it doesn't make them look meaningful how? The last winner used it to become the World Heavyweight Champion and whether Punk does it or not, he's stated he intended on using it to become ECW World Champion. When the concept involves "firing" a worker, you get auto suck by most standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickC13573 Posted April 25, 2008 Author Share Posted April 25, 2008 I think his point was that since there are three "World" titles, the titles are worthless because there are 2 WORLD Titles. Everyone knows the more titles, the less important each title becomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Humanoid Typhoon Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Seeing as he said MitB doesn't make them look meaningful and what you described has nothing to do with the idea or match, it'd be a poor point to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Gadzinski Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 [QUOTE=The Humanoid Typhoon;410917]Why do you speak political and irrelevant things to me? Whether are not you find the point tired does not change that it's far more relevant than anything you could possibly type to counter it. TNA beating ECW on ONE occasion was not the result of iMPACT's rise, but ECW's decline. WWE has been treating like it a developmental televised show since Lashley became champion. Vince McMahon didn't give a damn when that news came out. Nothing changed on ECW. Thus, it was meaningless.[/QUOTE] A few things about this... 1. Spelling Errors. 2. WWE isn't using ECW as a televised development territory. If they were I'd be watching alot more. How can you claim it's a development territory if they have multiple people that were there for years. If it was development they'd have way more people nobodies ever heard of. I watch it more if they were showing people like Kofi Kingston, Matt Sydal, Carlito's Brother(can't think of the name at the moment.) I think it'd be better as all those people are working there asses off to prove themselves as to where names such as Big Daddy V, Kane, CM Punk, Matt Striker, and Elijah Burke don't have to prove themselves anymore they've been there a few years now. 3. Lashley has been gone for quite some time. And am I the only one that thinks everytime there is a discussion or a good thing happening in the wrestling biz, there is always something/someone to bring it right back down? It does not matter if it's in Australia, Iraq, U.S., Canada, Mexico or Africa .. TNA beat WWE in a ratings battle granted they are on at way different times in Australia it is still a victory. To me though in past weeks TNA is dropping the ball ever so slowly.. Since the re-hiring of Vince Russo they have been dying slowly. Just have to point out to that I am an avid viewer for nearly 4 years since they were first aired on FSN in the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Wolf Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 I think what he was trying to say is since feat or fired gives one person a shot at each of the different titles in the company it is better than MITB because it gives one guy a shot at any title (not just world titles boys and girls any title although we all know they'll choose a world title). I'm not saying I agree with him I'm just saying that I think some people were missing his point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Humanoid Typhoon Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 [quote=Tyler Gadzinski;410928]1. Spelling Errors.[/quote]Yup. Australia matters so little, I spelled wrong. What do you want, a stripper? [quote=Tyler Gadzinski;410928]2. WWE isn't using ECW as a televised development territory. If they were I'd be watching alot more. How can you claim it's a development territory if they have multiple people that were there for years. If it was development they'd have way more people nobodies ever heard of. I watch it more if they were showing people like Kofi Kingston, Matt Sydal, Carlito's Brother(can't think of the name at the moment.) I think it'd be better as all those people are working there asses off to prove themselves as to where names such as Big Daddy V, Kane, CM Punk, Matt Striker, and Elijah Burke don't have to prove themselves anymore they've been there a few years now. 3. Lashley has been gone for quite some time.[/quote]Lashley's abscence is completely irrelevant to the direction the show has taken. Secondly, I stated Vince McMahon treated it like a developmental. I never said it was a developmental or a developmental territory. Please don't make up statements on my behalf because your argument is just that weak. If you're gonna tell me I'm wrong, have the nerve to stand on your own two feet than rely on fabrications. It's pathetic. Try again. [quote=Tyler Gadzinski;410928]It does not matter if it's in Australia, Iraq, U.S., Canada, Mexico or Africa .. TNA beat WWE in a ratings battle granted they are on at way different times in Australia it is still a victory.[/quote]Winning ONE week in Australia is irrelevant to WWE. It's a victory, but it's one that means absolutely nothing to the the people they want to compete against. TNA hasn't even made Vince McMahon flinch. After Wrestlemania 23, there were several reports about how demoralized the roster was, noticing the difference between the two companies after thinking they had made some ground. TNA has yet to turn a profit. They've ABOUT broken even. With WM 24, WWE made more money in one day than TNA has in their existence. That's a jaw-shattering punch to the face and a kick in the balls. NOTE: Kofi Kingston is on the ECW roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickC13573 Posted April 25, 2008 Author Share Posted April 25, 2008 its still a victory, whether it matters or not, its still a plus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Gadzinski Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 [QUOTE=The Humanoid Typhoon;410957]NOTE: Kofi Kingston is on the ECW roster.[/QUOTE] I know he is, I stated he was. I was saying as they should show him more than one time a show. And it seems your only arguement is that TNA beat them "[SIZE="5"]ONE[/SIZE]" week is really getting old. Yes we know it was one week, does not mean TNA didn't beat them. Even if it was for one week. What do you have wrong with Australia anyway? Constant saying they're crap. And how is me saying about Lashley is irrelevant?.. You stated that since Lashley became champ WWE has been treating ECW like a Development Program. So I finish again... How come something good happens for the business and someone is there to cut it right back down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Aussie Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 [QUOTE=Tyler Gadzinski;410982]I know he is I stated he was. Learn to read. And it seems your only arguement is that TNA beat them "[SIZE="5"]ONE[/SIZE]" week is really getting old. Yes we know it was one week, does not mean TNA didn't beat them. Even if it was for one week. What do you have wrong with Australia anyway? Constant saying they're crap. And how is me saying about Lashley is irrelevant?.. You stated that since Lashley became champ WWE has been treating ECW like a Development Program. So I finish again... How come something good happens for the business and someone is there to cut it right back down?[/QUOTE] Compare the timeslots: WWE Raw- Wendsday, 3:30 PM WWE Smackdown- Friday, 3:30 PM TNA Impact- Saturday, 10:00 PM Now who would you say has a more convenient timeslot to watch wrestling at? It's not suprising that TNA has rated well in its first two weeks in Australia, they have a timeslot that people can actually watch during Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Gadzinski Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Hey Aussie, I'm not the one saying that TNA is winning cuz they're better ... I've been saying that even if they have a better timeslot and what not. They still technically won the ratings there. You wouldn't say Lesnar won his first UFC fight cuz he dominated yet he tapped out. That's basically what I'm saying about TNA vs. WWE in Australia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Aussie Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Yes they did win the ratings here. There is one thing you must remember about Australian Cable: We, literally, don't care about ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.