The Official TNA / Impact / GFW Discussion Thread

[Linsolv]

Well, at least I'd worry that he's take an excessive amount of creatine. And odds are, that's gonna lead to an injury (back when I played tennis a lot, there was a lot of debate about the +/- of creatine -- tends to lead to ligament injury, because the tendons don't grow as fast as the muscle), and that's bad. So either way.

 

EDIT: Also, those UFC fighters have a very strong incentive to keep their weight down.

[shawn michaels]

Here's the breakdown I found at http://www.tnastars.com/2010/03/23/tna-impact-ratings-322-full-breakdown/

 

iMPACT! Ratings (3/22): Full Breakdown

Added on Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010 at 6:48 pm to Latest News by Joe

 

Partial Source: Pro Wrestling Torch

 

Last night’s live edition of TNA Impact did a 0.9 cable rating which was rounded up from a 0.86 with 1,200,00 viewers. While still under what the series was doing taped on Thursday nights, the number is up from last week’s abysmal 0.84 cable rating.

 

The quarter-hour ratings for last night’s TNA Impact fluctuated throughout the show before peaking in Q6 and steadily dropping for the final two quarter-hours and over-run.

 

The show opened with a 0.79 quarter-hour rating with Eric Bischoff and Jeff Jarrett, which was the next-to-lowest quarter-hour rating on the show.

 

The show built to a 0.93 quarter-hour in Q3 with the Lockdown announcement featuring Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Sting, and A.J. Styles.

 

The audience level then dropped 18.3 percent to a show-low 0.76 quarter-hour rating in Q4 featuring Rob Terry vs. Tomko.

 

After the show bottomed out, the audience rebuilt to a 0.97 quarter-hour rating in Q6 with the end of Jarrett-Foley, RVD and Jeff Hardy in-ring, and Bischoff and Hulk Hogan backstage.

 

After the show peaked in Q6, the audience steadily declined to an average 0.85 quarter-hour for Q8 and a 0.81 over-run rating for the end of Beer Money vs. RVD & Jeff Hardy.

 

--------

Kind of surprised the main event lost viewers given the overness of RVD and to a lesser extent Hardy, not to mention that Beer Money are pretty over.

 

 

Also here's a comparative link I found with a Raw/Impact Comparison (haven't found a raw ratings brekdown anywhere theough. Will update if I do)

 

At this point i would say that this is what it looks like: Some people are just zapping TNA on and off for most of the show,to see if it's worth watching,but most of them gets bored, or confused, or dislikes what they see and they get sick of it before the end, hence the low main events, especially this week's ME, as it had 4 works who are pretty over.

[TommyDreamerFan]

No. But TNA does have a three year deal, so realistically there wasn't a chance of Spike ever dropping Impact unless there was a catastrophic drop in ratings.

 

 

 

He's f'n awful in the ring, he has almost zero charisma, and TNA actually has several guys under contract that look just as impressive and are ten times as talented. He's a waste of time. Total garbage.

 

Hernandez and Morgan are the only two guys I can think of on the TNA roster that share the same look, and they're currently being pushed as well. He's not a terrible wrestler, not great or good by any means, but used in his purpose...

 

Well hell, Pete, Ultimate Warriors and Goldbergs CAN have a place on a very talented roster. And the way they're are pushing him is very freaking intelligently. The reason I disagree with you is because he's young. He can learn, they can pare him with a manager. His look alone makes him full of potential.

[PeterHilton]

But yeah, the guy looks like a freak of nature, as long is he isn't on roids, I'd push the rap out of him. If he is on roids, and with that look it wouldn't be surprising, then that's a risk TNA needs to decide if they are willing to take given the PR backlash that may come down the line.

 

TNA has like zero drug policy and has been willing to deal with both Angle and Hardy even during their drug related issues.

 

Seriously doubt they care one way or the other.

[TommyDreamerFan]

TNA has like zero drug policy and has been willing to deal with both Angle and Hardy even during their drug related issues.

 

Seriously doubt they care one way or the other.

 

PR backlash? That's rubbish. Something like that wouldn't hurt TNA at all.

[liontamer]

Just a quick note. Roids does not equal muscles. You can have a body like Rob's without 'roids'. You can't have a body like Stiener's without 'roids'. Also, when people say 'roids', alot of the time they're getting it confused with HGH (human growth hormone). Steriods are used for a variety of things; repairing internal tissue damage, for example. In some cases they can help you *lose* weight.

 

The three guys below were all on steroids at the time...no Big Rob look-a-likes here :-p

 

http://www.mmatko.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/sakaruba-gracie.jpg

 

(Royce)

 

http://www.cdn.sherdog.com/_images/news/2006_12/6380.jpg

 

http://www.fcfighter.com/PICTURES/UFC36/barnett-belt.jpg

 

 

I didn't by any means state he is deffinately using them, just that I wouldn't be surprised. He is freakishly huge and there has been a history of use in the industry in general.

 

Also confused on why you state you can have a body like his without using , but not like Steiner's. The few times they've been in the ring together, Terry's looked bigger and more impressive to me (and like Master's - who did get busted for roids).

 

As for the pics, I'd be more interested in a before/after look as that would show the effects better. Part of the differences as well could be in what else they used with the roids and how long they were on them.

 

Several decades ago when bodybuilders used lots of roids, they started developing breasts and even lactating because the excess testosterone was converted into estrogen (and just to avoid a post response on it, no I'm suggesting those guys in the pics have this particular issue). With estrogen blockers that doesn't happen, and there are likely other chemicals that can affect things, not to mention the role of genetics

 

Also the tissue repair you noted is part of how roids -> muscle. You repair faster so you can train harder and you have increased testosterone which aides in muscle growth. And I agree, HGH and a number of other drugs could cause slimilar effects.

 

 

And since you mentioned it, how are they used for weight loss. Haven't heard of that one before, although I can see where extra testostrone may benefit.

[shawn michaels]

TNA has like zero drug policy and has been willing to deal with both Angle and Hardy even during their drug related issues.

 

Seriously doubt they care one way or the other.

 

I seriously doubt that they think they can afford caring about it.

[brashleyholland]

I didn't by any means state he is deffinately using them, just that I wouldn't be surprised.

 

I never said you did, I was just saying. A lot of people see a cut guy and assume OMGZ ROOOOIIIIIDDDZZZ!!!!

 

Also confused on why you state you can have a body like his without using , but not like Steiner's. The few times they've been in the ring together, Terry's looked bigger and more impressive to me (and like Master's - who did get busted for roids).

 

Because there is a big difference between this...

 

http://quizilla.teennick.com/user_images/X/XX/XXX/XXXSTORYCHICKXXX/1241806157_3975_full.jpeg

 

...on a 6'4 frame and this...

 

http://thumbnail.image.rakuten.co.jp/@0_mall/b-drop/cabinet/photo/pphoto-sste.jpg

 

...on a guy of 6 feet tall. Stiener's wiki has him at 6'1, but that's my height and I was taller than him when I met him years back. His body is totaly out of proportion for his height. There's nothing natural about that man :-p

 

As for the pics, I'd be more interested in a before/after look as that would show the effects better. Part of the differences as well could be in what else they used with the roids and how long they were on them.

 

There's not a noticable difference with any of them really. Barnett has drifted between that pic, slightly pudgyer and fairly sloppy over the years...but he's been done for 'roids' in all three conditions. Royce has never looked bigger or smaller, outside of him naturally getting a little thicker with age. Plus, with athletes who take roids for reasons other than looking like Stiener, it's tough to know when they are not using and when they are just not getting caught using. I personally know a number of high-level MMA and K-1 fighters (competing in the UFC, WEC, K-1, It's Showtime and Strikeforce) who use banned substances and pass pee tests with alarming regularity :-p

 

 

And since you mentioned it, how are they used for weight loss. Haven't heard of that one before, although I can see where extra testostrone may benefit.

 

It's a long and convoluted process that involves adding a minimum of muscle mass in order to increase your performance in work-outs to hit a peak amount of calories burned and shred off every bit of excess non-muscle weight that you can. It's not healthy and is very much down to getting the science right and the individual's reactions :-p Now I remember it, thats what Tim Sylvia was doing when he got busted...he was doing it wrong :-p

[Linsolv]

Brashley, no offense, but they seem to have the same proportions to me.

[brashleyholland]

Brashley, no offense, but they seem to have the same proportions to me.

 

Those biceps look the same to you? :-p

[Linsolv]

For the record, Poppa Pump's only ability seems to be flexing; Big Rob's not flexing at all. But I will poke a hole in my argument by looking at Steiner's hilariously huge forearms.

[brashleyholland]

For the record, Poppa Pump's only ability seems to be flexing; Big Rob's not flexing at all. But I will poke a hole in my argument by looking at Steiner's hilariously huge forearms.

 

Lol, maybe it's all these steroids I've been taking skewing my judgement :-D

[brashleyholland]

Anyway speaking of Big, Natural Rob , I get the awful feeling that we're going to be seeing an awful lot of squash matches in the comming weeks as they attempt to make something of him.

 

Seems strange that they haven't kept him closer to the British Invasion - both those guys can wrestle rings around him, would have thought it'd make sense for them to have a few bouts together to make him look good (or better).

 

Unless, shock horror, they're actually going to make something of Doug Williams as X-Division champ...

[liontamer]

reading the results from the tapings and some small spoilers below without sharing too much.

 

 

Somehow Young gets a pop that is said to be bigger than RVD or Hardy during a segment with the band

 

The pope gets his first ho

 

Orlando Jordan gets a 'that was creepy' chant from the crowd.

[Hyde Hill]

Is there some better source? I almost got a subscription to PWI but then I figured out that it would be smarter to just read a blog. But I only found PWTorch.

 

Is there one that's considerably better?

 

PWI is the only good one imho. And if you want a discussion board then this is the place to be imho.

[Hyde Hill]

I have to say, tonight was definitely an improvement. Other than working the Hernandez broken neck that's already getting about as old as Kurt's, it was a solid show.

.

 

Ehm they mentioned it when he came back and when Young piledrived him on the stage months and months back. That isn't exactly over working it. They made the work injury look really real imho.

[Hyde Hill]

Angle is on a reduced schedule. I can't imagine he'd be doing much 24 hours after a PPV.

 

See, I don't think TNA needs to cover every storyline every week. I'm OK with not doing every storyline every week, it give others more time to develop. Video packages to remind the fans about whats happened should be fine if there's no in ring or backstage action one week.

 

At least that's what I do in TEW...my digital fans don't seem to mind

 

Plus, TNA really HAS to have a ton of storylines since they have to fill 3 Hours on PPV every month, and nowadays every match has to have a story attached. It's hard to do 6-8 storylines a week for 4 weeks.

 

WWE has what 8 hours of TV time a week? Of course every match at the PPV will have a storyline for it. I think it's best for TNA to not fill each week up with stories and to give some stories a week off. Can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't expect people to buy PPVs where half the matches have a storyline attached, and you can't complain that some storylines were forgotten during their only 2 hours of TV each week. I doubt I'm the only one who thinks that since TNA stopped trying to fit almost every single storyline into one show, it's been getting better.

 

Yep they can't put all storylines in one show and some storylines are interwoven. SO what that RVD and Sting didn't have a one on one confrontation doesn't mean its done. They will probably meet in Lethal Lockdown.

 

When all the storylines are put in one show you get the too much going on problem and I thought the pacing of this Impact was excellent. A 2 hour show in 2 hours. Instead of the Rob Terry squash (, why push this guy imho? Muscles yes, rest no.) and the length of the Jarret Bisch confrontation, I would have put either an Angle/Anderson package or an X-Division angle or match.

[Hyde Hill]

MCMG come off kind of heelish, but not really.

 

I was thinking this morning; Above, someone mentioned EB's strategy is to "be unpredictable." There's a fundamental flaw in that strategy, though, because BEING LOGICAL, and doing things that MAKE SENSE means being predictable. Funny thing, that.

 

Guns have been on the heel side of things for a long long time now ever since "turning" on the frontline. So its not just EB and co that want them as heels. They have never been full on heels though.

 

I think that a true mark of a good booker is being able to be unpredictable but still logical and make sense. Only it won't always be clear from the get go.

[Hyde Hill]

It's being assumed because we're used to TNA's shoddy booking.

 

Benefit of the doubt people. Lethal lockdown they will be in opposite teams and then a one on one the ppv after? And so far Sting is being really heelish which he never was in the MEM.

[Hyde Hill]

I would say "defending it" is blind loyalty. You admit they make mistakes.

 

Why stand up for TNA when really all your agrument boils down to is : "hey i know it's a mess but I like it."

 

(which btw is perfectly fair and far more respectable than "TNA is GREAT>WWE EB IS E AGENYUS. everything is perfect!100000X betterr " etc)

 

Hmmm I like the TNA product and have been defending it but moreso because the whole IWC seems to always want to point out the negatives in anything. Sorta playing the "Angels advocate" but when they do something bad in my eyes I am very critical of the product at the same time. That is not blind loyalty its plain loyalty at best and there is a big difference.

 

I see things that I like plenty of times on TNA and things I really dislike and try to look at things from the marks and managements perspective and not the smark one.

[cappyboy]

 

I think we all agree this weeks impact was good, wasn't great, but it was good. Certainly it was a step in the right direction.

 

 

Actually no, we can't. I found it to be a mixed bag. The first hour we can pretty much agree on. But the second hour was so bad I couldn't be bothered to stay put for it.

 

You start with Terry vs Tomko. Dull vs duller. Then you throw on a match that realistically ought to be a main event in Foley vs Jarrett. Even though the stip made it totally uninteresting because the match seemed to be screaming for a double countout finish and neither guy actually losing. You give little to no indication that's not going to be the main event until the match actually happens and promote nothing that's going to potentially be in between the two. And that's somehow TV in the same ballpark as the last couple months of Impact?

 

Even with the warts the last couple months have had, I think not. That's pretty garbage programming to my mind. I expect thinking like that out of WWE. Heck, by what the E's been doing the last year or two, this week's Impact would have been an awesome Smackdown. I can't remember the last time WWE managed to keep me interested for a full hour at a time. But for Impact, that was hideous. I think it's the first time I've been willingly driven away from Impact since our cable company brought Spike TV back down off the digital hill and returned it to us lowly rabble. Because of that half a show issue, I'd say this was the worst Impact I've ever seen. Even the ones y'all might try to convince me were worse had enough to them to feel worth seeing through.

[The Shape]

Don't doubt it. We're talking about the guy that still thinks nowadays that he is still the most over worker in the whole world. So, yeah...pretty much he thinks he is more important then anyone, although he is like...1024 years old.

 

This raises an interesting point in TEW terms lol...cause i'd say he is still the best known worker in the world, perhaps with the exception of The Rock. That's more crossover based though, in wrestling itself, he's waned quite a bit.

[PeterHilton]

Benefit of the doubt people.

 

Went over this already..

 

TNA giving us crappy booking for 7 years = they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[PeterHilton]

Hmmm I like the TNA product and have been defending it but moreso because the whole IWC seems to always want to point out the negatives in anything. Sorta playing the "Angels advocate" but when they do something bad in my eyes I am very critical of the product at the same time. That is not blind loyalty its plain loyalty at best and there is a big difference.

 

 

The 'blind loyalty' remark was to Slagaholic and his idea that it was irrational for people to make decisions based on a company's past.

 

This 'benefit of the doubt' concept seems to be a running theme amongst TNA supporters.

 

In any other line of entertainment I can imagine, if I were to make a critical comment about a company's future prospects of delivering a good product based on the failures of the past ("Why would I buy the next Madden? EA only ever updates the roster..") it would make perfect sense.

 

In wrestling, that's being 'overly negative' and I'm supposed to believe the better approach is 'c'mon guys..LET'S GIVE IT A CHANCE!'

 

[shawn michaels]

This raises an interesting point in TEW terms lol...cause i'd say he is still the best known worker in the world, perhaps with the exception of The Rock. That's more crossover based though, in wrestling itself, he's waned quite a bit.

 

He might still be the most know worker in the world for his achievements in the past, but he is definitely not the most over guy nowadays. He isn't a major top draw anymore. it's time for him to face it. And he still had the nerve to ask Vince a few years ago (3 years ago,IIRC) who were the other 11 guys getting HIS money when VInce told hem he was not the only top dog anymore (because now there were at least 11 other guys)? Please...the guy is a leech. A leech that actually thinks he can still try and do...leeching... But getting back to the point: Beeing known is not the same thing that beeing over.