The Official TNA / Impact / GFW Discussion Thread

[HughBatey4]

Guess I was right in my hunch that MyNetwork shows in more homes but Spike is the better known/viewed network thanks for clearing that up Stennick. And how is this debate stupid?As unfortunately by all accounts ratings matter.

 

I agree that one shouldn't normally ad replay ratings but don't you agree that in this case there is a good case to be made that out of the 0.9 a sizable portion where original viewers?

 

 

Go to timeout.

 

Seriously, we'll never know if they were original viewers or not.

[Hyde Hill]

Ok just spoke to my housemate and let him read the whole thread and he is studying as a master in applied mathematics. He says it is reasonable to say that in this situation (,and this situation alone,) a third of the replay viewers can be seen as new, original viewers.

 

Will we know for certain no of course not, but that is true with a whole lot of things or even everything but I am not in the mood for a philosophical debate.

 

Again: I agree that in normal circumstances one can not say anything about replays. Under the current circumstances however it is not unreasonable to say that a part of that 0.9 audience where fresh viewers.

 

Those this put them close to Smackdown, apparently not as their 2.0 equates to more viewers then a 2.0 on Spike does. Does that possibly put them closer, yes.

 

And saying Go to timeout is so uncalled for man, especially as over in an other thread you where praising the adultness of these boards.

[HughBatey4]

Ok just spoke to my housemate and let him read the whole thread and he is studying as a master in applied mathematics. He says it is reasonable to say that in this situation (,and this situation alone,) a third of the replay viewers can be seen as new, original viewers.

 

Will we know for certain no of course not, but that is true with a whole lot of things or even everything but I am not in the mood for a philosophical debate.

 

Again: I agree that in normal circumstances one can not say anything about replays. Under the current circumstances however it is not unreasonable to say that a part of that 0.9 audience where fresh viewers.

 

Those this put them close to Smackdown, apparently not as their 2.0 equates to more viewers then a 2.0 on Spike does. Does that possibly put them closer, yes.

 

And saying Go to timeout is so uncalled for man, especially as over in an other thread you where praising the adultness of these boards.

 

Look, there is no possible way to EVER know if those viewers were original or not, dude,

[TheBrockLock]

Ok just spoke to my housemate and let him read the whole thread and he is studying as a master in applied mathematics. He says it is reasonable to say that in this situation (,and this situation alone,) a third of the replay viewers can be seen as new, original viewers.

 

Will we know for certain no of course not, but that is true with a whole lot of things or even everything but I am not in the mood for a philosophical debate.

 

Again: I agree that in normal circumstances one can not say anything about replays. Under the current circumstances however it is not unreasonable to say that a part of that 0.9 audience where fresh viewers.

 

Those this put them close to Smackdown, apparently not as their 2.0 equates to more viewers then a 2.0 on Spike does. Does that possibly put them closer, yes.

 

And saying Go to timeout is so uncalled for man, especially as over in an other thread you where praising the adultness of these boards.

 

 

I want to know why its "this situation and this situation alone" that we can assume that a third of the replay viewers are new viewers. Just becuase your housemate is an applied math major and has read a total of 1 thread on the topic does not mean he is a credible source. Unless your houemate follows trends in new timeslots vs. replays and the viewers of each (highly unlikely) then there is no way he could come up with this "1/3 are new viewers" hypothesis and be correct with it unless its just a lucky guess.

 

 

Like Hugh said, there is no way to know what amount of the .9 were new viewers becuase there is absoulelty no way to get that kind of information, its all just guess work, which is exactly why we can not add the 1.5 and any part of the .9 together, thats just not how these things work.

[PeterHilton]

I agree that one shouldn't normally ad replay ratings but don't you agree that in this case there is a good case to be made that out of the 0.9 a sizable portion where original viewers?

 

No.

 

Because TNA has such a proven and loyal fanbase that's actually the worse case to be made.

 

TNA has such a built in rating of 1.0 on Thursday (it rarely fluctuates) that I almost want to assume that it was those fans that watched again out of loyalty/habit that popped the .9.

[PeterHilton]

Ok just spoke to my housemate and let him read the whole thread and he is studying as a master in applied mathematics.

 

So..?

 

Unless he's done a masters in the viewing habits of American TV ratings with a second degree in pro wrestling fans, it's nonsense.

[Stennick]

So..?

 

Unless he's done a masters in the viewing habits of American TV ratings with a second degree in pro wrestling fans, it's nonsense.

 

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.

[jwt13]

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.

 

Not everone has a DVR or Tivo so you will have a margin of people who cant do that I do agree that it probly wasnt such a large number but I'd say maybe (just on peer guess) a extra 500- 1000 people tuned in on thursday but i also dont see people re watching the same show on a diffrent night though so..well I never watch the same wrestling show twice unless its the old Nitro stuff but thats just me

[Bigpapa42]

Have to agree with the mass here. Sorry, HH, but assuming anything about the viewers on the replay without empirical research makes it supposition. As well, ratings for repeated showings of Raw, SD, etc, are never taken into consideration and "added in" somehow, so I don't see how its at all legitimate to do it in this case, even with the assumptions.

 

TNA did a very impressive 1.5 rating for its live Monday Impact. Be happy about that...

[jwt13]

I've read on another forum that the reason that The Nasty Boyz, Val Venis, and OJ are on Impact and likly Mr. Kennedy soon is because of dates Hogan owes them from the Hulkamania tour, so with this being said do any of you know of this? And if so did he end his tour early?

[Hyde Hill]

Have to agree with the mass here. Sorry, HH, but assuming anything about the viewers on the replay without empirical research makes it supposition. As well, ratings for repeated showings of Raw, SD, etc, are never taken into consideration and "added in" somehow, so I don't see how its at all legitimate to do it in this case, even with the assumptions.

 

TNA did a very impressive 1.5 rating for its live Monday Impact. Be happy about that...

 

No need to apologize mate and I agree its a supposition but I stand by it as given the circumstances that one third of those 0.9 are first time viewers is not far fetched in my opinion agree to disagree as usual on these boards hehe. And yes the real next test will be next Thursday.

 

Plus Vince Russo was answering questions by fans on his facebook today, whatever one says about the guy that was real classy. Three most poignant things I got out of it Russo took over from Jarrett as head writer in July exactly the time when TNA started to get better and the young guys got a serious push especially once Bound For Glory was done as they had long term plans for that. I say head writer as apparently Russo hates and he capslocked underscored it hates the word Booker. And finally it looks like the six sided ring is going the way of the dodo in TNA.

[Hyde Hill]

I've read on another forum that the reason that The Nasty Boyz, Val Venis, and OJ are on Impact and likly Mr. Kennedy soon is because of dates Hogan owes them from the Hulkamania tour, so with this being said do any of you know of this? And if so did he end his tour early?

 

No but if I remember correctly they did scrap a few dates way back in the beginning of promoting the tour. Also there are strong rumors there will be a surprise debut at Genesis. Prolly Kennedy I think as who is left?

 

Oh **** Ed Leslie!!

[Wrestling Century]

No but if I remember correctly they did scrap a few dates way back in the beginning of promoting the tour. Also there are strong rumors there will be a surprise debut at Genesis. Prolly Kennedy I think as who is left?

 

Might be RVD. Might be Goldberg. Remind me again why Goldberg hasn't wrestled for them yet?

[Hyde Hill]

Short answer: Money!!!!

[Wrestling Century]

Short answer: Money!!!!

 

I think that there's enough money for big names like Goldberg if they can hire big names like Hogan and Flair. Are you sure that is why?

[Hyde Hill]

Thing is he wants Rock level of money and he just isn't worth that as his age/overness level and skill level combined with a super light schedule that he apparently wants aren't worth that. That is according to the rumors anyway not forgetting he is focusing on his TV career. I wouldn't rule out a one of appearance though as some of "his" shows are on Spike.

[Hyde Hill]

Might be RVD. Might be Goldberg. Remind me again why Goldberg hasn't wrestled for them yet?

 

On RVD I am currently thinking if he does come to TNA it will be after the wrestlereunion show as they are heavily promoting RVD's return to a US ring and he is an honorable guy. Plus he would want to see how things pan out first.

[tristram]

I have finally seen the show. It's the first show of any promotion for a number of years I have watched in one go. I tried watching Bret Hart's RAW, but... while I really respect Bret, the whole 'bury the hatchet' segment with HBK was just... well, nuts in my eyes. My thoughts:-

 

* Angle - AJ Styles match. Phenomenal, excuse the pun. In some ways, Kurt Angle is becoming as much of a favourite to me as Bret Hart. He is a world class wrestler, and a better entertainer microphone in hand than Bret, so I got to thinking in the match seeing how well he was selling that he is right now the most complete wrestler going around. The Styles Clash reruns, nice, and nicely thought out that something had to come after the Styles Clash to win, since Angle kept getting up. Even the pin covers, Angle sold well. One in particular, his eyes look dead set glazed and then he brushes Earl Hebner's hand before it comes down.

 

The downside to this match is simple. The match should NOT have been followed with the Foley-Hogan-Waltman-Bischoff-Hall segment. If the word from Hogan is true, that its all about the young guys, lets make a statement and end the show on the match, end the show with a celebration, and perhaps, given the Bischoff-Styles confrontation earlier, Styles having a 'respect' promo on Angle, giving him another shot at Genesis, but as a 60 Minute Iron-Man Match.

 

* The Steel Asulym. I don't like it from a broadcast perspective. The big red chunky steel cage, really. And I think in some ways it forgets one thing. That the show is wrestling, not gymnastics. And basically, going up into the funnel at the top to me is nothing but Nadia Kiminiski gymnastics, which I'm not here to watch. Plus, with the big red chunky steel, it's hard from a television perspective to truly see everything going on. The Homicide baton thing I think was oversold, also. It kind of came from nowhere. And it ruined anything the match could have been. Perhaps the escape to the outside should not be at the top in the middle, and can also end with pinfall.. or something. I don't know, the match just appears illogical.

 

* Jeff Hardy showing up, set the show off on a good tangent.

 

* The mystery man. Has to be someone like RVD or Goldberg, or else its a major let down in my eyes. If its someone of a lesser calibre, have them interfere midcard, not main event.

 

* Flair's arrival was well done, but perhaps, it might of been nice when Eric Young is at the back that Eric Young mouths off at Flair for trying to hog the limelight. Young as a heel just shaking his hand and nodding... a bit soft.

 

* The Mick Foley thing. Didn't mind it. But, again, it should NOT be the show closer. That belonged to Angle-Styles.

 

* The Hogan interruption on Jarrett. Didn't really like it, because aside from belittling Jarrett who the TNA crowd are hot for, essentially everything Hogan had said, Jarrett had already said. Didn't think it was necessary.

 

* Loved the Val Venis-Beautiful People segment. Sold well.

 

* Did not enjoy the Nasty Boys, but can cop it given they didn't wrestle. The sad thing is they're going to it looks like be popped into a feud with 3D. The problem is, 3D often win with big table spots, and I swear, the hardcore tag match the Nasty Boys had down here in Australia at Sydney was the softest lot of trash I have ever seen. Sags and Nobs can not go anymore. They barely could 10 years ago.

 

* Loved the Desmond Wolfe-Pope match. Loved the commentary and how they sold Desmond Wolfe's catch as catch can wrestling style and his ability to go after particular body spots. Pope sold those moves well.

 

* I thought the Samoa Joe-Abyss match was extremely, extremely good. The ending was outstandingly well done, as it did not destroy Abyss at all. Nice match.

 

* With the Bobby Lashley segment... two things. Firstly, Krystal was brilliant at getting the crowd riled up. But... but... but... Why on a show where you are trying to promote TNA to a larger audience do you want a segment where basically you are saying TNA is not good enough, or big enough, for Lashley, and that MMA is more what he strives for? I thought he strives competition?

 

Overall, I think someone elses comments earlier, that it wasn't a home run but an RBI is a solid summation. It did a lot of very, very, very good things, but ultimately a few things need to be logically tied together to make much sense. That said, I can watch this style of wrestling entertainment more than WWE's at the moment.

[Hyde Hill]

The entire Jan 4th show is now up on Youtube courtesy of TNA themselves in case anyone missed it or wants to see it again:

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/TNAwrestling#p/u

[Stennick]

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.

[Hyde Hill]

Indeed although WWE's core website is way better then TNA's just compare the profiles etc. Seriously one of the points TNA should work on imho.

[tristram]

One thing to note on the broadcast down under, they must have missed some segments as there was no sight of Orlando Jordan on our show (he did appear, didn't he?) and there was no showing of Ric Flair talking to AJ Styles.

 

One extra thing I didn't like, I think it's when Bischoff meets Krystal. At the top of the segment he says something like that segment is too long, make it shorter... that to me is overly smarky. In some ways, I like some of the old 1980s action when the interview was so not-scripted and was off the cuff, because it felt real. That to me just said everything from here was on a format and a script. Not digging it. The second thing was the Lashley comment, that TNA didn't need him. I just think some subtle rewording would have worked the matter out fine, Lashley is still gone, but perhaps Bischoff sells his loss a bit more, maybe he shows frustration, I dunno, it just seemed to blow him apart a bit.

 

On the Joe-Abyss match, fanastically well worked ending. Credit to those two. Too often lately I've seen submission endings or 'near' endings that lack use of psychology. I've seen wrestlers who if they had their arm fully outstretched rather than half braced would easily get to the rope and therefore render the submission useless. The ring positioning for the finish was excellent and it was just a little basic, along with Joe's use of the chair that to me left Abyss with credit, that was very solid.

[Craig Edwards]

They only showed Flair walking into AJ's Looker Room, Plus you might not of notice Orlando Jordan with his hair. He was in the Pope interview.

[Basmat01]

Thought I'll post this Audio. Bubba The Love Sponge rips Jim Cornettes for blasting TNA.

 

http://www.gerweck.net/news/1263194104.shtml

[Anderz]

just had a random thought earlier today.. but it, for me at least, is a poor thing for TNA..

 

hopefully this is easy to follow...

 

a brand new fan tunes into TNA (this fan doesnt use the internet for Wrestling and has never seen or heard of any wrestling company ever).. the new fan enjoys TNA and begins to watch it.. but TNA keeps mentioning this WWE, so the new fan checks out WWE and begins to watch that as well.. which he likes better is irrelevant, its TNA pointing out the competition to its fans thats the problem..

 

on the flip side, a brand new fan tunes into WWE.. all that is talked about is the WWE.. this fan has no idea what TNA is and has no inclination to find it.. this fan stays with WWE and only WWE unless he goes out of his way to find an alternative on the internet (or another TV Channel)..

 

my point, WWE doesnt advertise its competition.. TNA does.. not really sure whether this can lead to a discussion is just the random thoughts of myself.. and as a disclaimer.. no Im not anti-TNA or 'bashing' TNA.. I just had the random thought and believed it was worth noting as a downside of TNA's business plan..