The Official TNA / Impact / GFW Discussion Thread

[Hyde Hill]

Sky ,the WWE's channel, is in only 5 percent less homes or so then Bravo reportedly, so pretty much everyone carries it and only RAW is in a bad slot as it is live. TNA house show recently did 8k attendance. Also many of the WWE ppv's where or still are free as long as you have that channel. Just saying that the closeness of the viewer numbers cannot be explained by those factors alone. If the free ppv's are a big factor I would start doing those in the US asap as TNA won't loose a lot of money since their buys aren't that high, although not as low as sometimes reported.

 

They can then get money off of selling the rights fees to the Sunday night specials and once the fanbase has grown and people know the quality of those shows they can move them back to ppv. Don't know the length of TNA's deals with the ppv providers though as can't seem to find that info. Trying to get answers from Bisch on that idea and the length hehe.

[crownsy]

I'm reading that to mean that some people don't want WWE (ratings remain close to same), but some people are turning away from TNA (ratings down). Maybe the novelty of Hogan wore off.

 

Right, but that means that half TNA's audience is not up for watching them on a monday.

 

Ergo, those viewers either:

 

A) watch WWE on Monday, and watched TNA on Thursdays in the past, and now they do not want to watch TNA on mondays

 

B) Aren't up for watching wrestling at all on a monday

 

Either is terrable news for tna.

[Hyde Hill]

Really hope TNA doesn't overreact due to the two low ratings and goes back to being legend and storyline heavy and jamming everything in that they can. The last two shows have had a good pace and angle/match ratio, not perfect yet but very good, so it would be a shame.

 

If people remember this happened more often with TNA in the past, they would have a couple of good shows with low ratings and then a crappy one with a higher one. I think this wasn't so much because of the content of the crappy one but because the two good ones got word of mouth going and got people interested in trying TNA again and then when they do watch they get the same stuff that turned them off resulting in a slide in the ratings again till the next couple of good shows in a row.

 

Plus contending with a move to Monday and pre and post mania shows. If and we know with TNA that is a big if they keep this quality of shows up they should be back in the 1.0+ in a couple of weeks. If they do keep this quality and they remain in the 0.6-0.8s then I wouldn't know.

[Tag01]

TNA had to expect this; wrestling is not as popular as it was. You're mostly catering to hardcore fans and kids, it is safe to assume TNA fans are also WWE fans, and when forced they're going choose the better product (WWE). None of that should be a surprise to TNA, and I hope that it doesn't make them abandon the monday night war experiment. Give it a few months.

[brashleyholland]

Sky ,the WWE's channel, is in only 5 percent less homes or so then Bravo reportedly, so pretty much everyone carries it and only RAW is in a bad slot as it is live. TNA house show recently did 8k attendance. Also many of the WWE ppv's where or still are free as long as you have that channel. Just saying that the closeness of the viewer numbers cannot be explained by those factors alone.

 

Couple of things...

 

- Sky is a TV provider, not a channel. Bravo (TNA's channel) is available on Sky and Virgin Media, the UK's other big subscription TV provider.

 

- WWE isn't on the regular Sky package, it's on Sky Sports. To get that, you not only have to have pay a monthly subscription for Sky, you have to pay an additional monthly subscription on top of that (which basically doubles your monthly payment for just four sports channels). You cannot just get the sports. Sky Sports is also available on Virgin Media, but is even more expensive.

 

- Bravo is available on the most basic packages on both platforms.

 

- Sky has about over nine million subscribers. Virgin Media has about three and a half to four million. Across both platforms, only about six million have Sky Sports. So realistically, WWE is only available to six million, whereas TNA is available to around 13 million. Also like you said, RAW starts at 3am on a Monday night, so if you have work or school, you're unlikely to watch the initial airing.

 

 

If the free ppv's are a big factor I would start doing those in the US asap as TNA won't loose a lot of money since their buys aren't that high, although not as low as sometimes reported.

 

They can then get money off of selling the rights fees to the Sunday night specials and once the fanbase has grown and people know the quality of those shows they can move them back to ppv.

 

The only reason that PPV's are 'free' in the UK is that we haven't really been conditioned to pay for our TV at all, at least not as long as folks in the states. We didn't get cable until the late-ish 90's, and 'pay TV' only really kicked off past the turn of the century. PPV simply doesn't sell in the UK. One reason is time, obviously. If you have work or school on Monday morning, you can't stay up until 4am and you're less likely to pay to see something that isn't live.

 

If TNA started putting shows on free TV in the states, they'd have a nightmare getting people to pay for them again in the future. You're assuming that they would get more viewers because the show would be free, but that would be more likely to work the opposite manner.

 

If you pay for a PPV, you're unlikely to turn off after the first hour even if it sucks. It doesn't even matter if you do, because you've already paid. TNA is struggling to get people to watch a 2 hr TV show...if the 'PPV's' are on TV, people will turn off if they suck. So not only wont they be getting PPV revenue, they'd have the potential to lose viewers. People will sit through three hours of 'meh' that they've paid for. They'll turn over after 1 hour of 'meh' on TV.

[Stennick]

Couple of things...

 

- Sky is a TV provider, not a channel. Bravo (TNA's channel) is available on Sky and Virgin Media, the UK's other big subscription TV provider.

 

- WWE isn't on the regular Sky package, it's on Sky Sports. To get that, you not only have to have pay a monthly subscription for Sky, you have to pay an additional monthly subscription on top of that (which basically doubles your monthly payment for just four sports channels). You cannot just get the sports. Sky Sports is also available on Virgin Media, but is even more expensive.

 

- Bravo is available on the most basic packages on both platforms.

 

- Sky has about over nine million subscribers. Virgin Media has about three and a half to four million. Across both platforms, only about six million have Sky Sports. So realistically, WWE is only available to six million, whereas TNA is available to around 13 million. Also like you said, RAW starts at 3am on a Monday night, so if you have work or school, you're unlikely to watch the initial airing.

 

 

 

 

The only reason that PPV's are 'free' in the UK is that we haven't really been conditioned to pay for our TV at all, at least not as long as folks in the states. We didn't get cable until the late-ish 90's, and 'pay TV' only really kicked off past the turn of the century. PPV simply doesn't sell in the UK. One reason is time, obviously. If you have work or school on Monday morning, you can't stay up until 4am and you're less likely to pay to see something that isn't live.

 

If TNA started putting shows on free TV in the states, they'd have a nightmare getting people to pay for them again in the future. You're assuming that they would get more viewers because the show would be free, but that would be more likely to work the opposite manner.

 

If you pay for a PPV, you're unlikely to turn off after the first hour even if it sucks. It doesn't even matter if you do, because you've already paid. TNA is struggling to get people to watch a 2 hr TV show...if the 'PPV's' are on TV, people will turn off if they suck. So not only wont they be getting PPV revenue, they'd have the potential to lose viewers. People will sit through three hours of 'meh' that they've paid for. They'll turn over after 1 hour of 'meh' on TV.

 

I agree with all of this television numbers can't be compared in the UK. I was trying to find attendance numbers for the WWE's UK DX Invasion House Show tour but I couldn't find any.

[Hyde Hill]

Thanks brash, seems I was misinformed about the coverage of homes that Bravo and Sky Sports get. Still if the difference maker isn't "free" ppv's then what is? And yeah I agree that doing free ppv's in the states is a double edged sword.

[Hyde Hill]

According to some sources in TNA and Viacom, yes I have them now as I have not been idle, Viacom is close to signing The Rock away from Disney for their movie division and they will be using TNA as a vehicle to promote his movies.

[Hive]

<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="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>According to some sources in TNA and Viacom, yes I have them now as I have not been idle, Viacom is close to signing The Rock away from Disney for their movie division and they will be using TNA as a vehicle to promote his movies.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> In other April 1st news, I have personally just bought both TNA and WWE. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

[Remianen]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="brashleyholland" data-cite="brashleyholland" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>If TNA started putting shows on free TV in the states, they'd have a nightmare getting people to pay for them again in the future. You're assuming that they would get more viewers because the show would be free, but that would be more likely to work the opposite manner.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> This is gospel. You have to really know the American audience and consumer to realize this. Unless you can ride the wave of a tech revolution (which is what TV and phone services did as well as broadband internet), people in the US aren't likely to start paying for something that was previously free.</p><p> </p><p> Granted, all I've known all my life is pay TV, coming from an early adopter family. I remember having <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wometco_Home_Theater" rel="external nofollow">WHT</a> in the house when I was, jeez, 5? I think the first "racy" film I saw was '<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_for_Mr._Goodbar_%28film%29" rel="external nofollow">Looking for Mr Goodbar</a>' when I was like six or seven. I was a launch subscriber to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Link" rel="external nofollow">Quantum Link</a>, so paying for online services wasn't foreign to me. I had a big, bulky, briefcase cell (or 'mobile' as it was called then) phone when I was 14 or 15 (granted, it was for illicit purposes, but I had it).</p><p> </p><p> I say all that to perhaps illustrate that the number of people who are willing to try something "new" that had been free (or almost free) previously, or just new in general, is really, really small. It takes time (years) to change perception to make people more open to these things. TNA switches their supposed pay per views to free and it'll be 2020 before they can expect to see revenue from them again. You also lose the war of perception, seeming "cheap" in comparison to the 'E. That's a powerful motivator here in the States. Many people have things simply because not having them leads to them being perceived a certain way (a particular cellphone model named after a fruit comes to mind). How's the saying go? Why buy the cow.....</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="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>According to some sources in TNA and Viacom, yes I have them now as I have not been idle, Viacom is close to signing The Rock away from Disney for their movie division and they will be using TNA as a vehicle to promote his movies.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> <img alt=":rolleyes:" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/rolleyes.png.4b097f4fbbe99ce5bcd5efbc1b773ed6.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

[LoganRodzen]

Just had to throw this out there to see what people were thinking of it...

 

AM RAW getting a 0.7 rating over the 0.6 Impact got on Monday is (may I say it?) extremely embarrassing. I don't care that HBK retired and that's "why the rating is so low". If it was me and I was playing TEW and got beat by a 'C-Show' that AM RAW pretty much is... I would be changing to an unopposed time slot. Why didn't they think a live Thursday show would benefit them better than head-to-head on Mondays?

[Nedew]

You also lose the war of perception, seeming "cheap" in comparison to the 'E. That's a powerful motivator here in the States.

 

Talk about ungrateful

[Hyde Hill]

Yeah I knew it was an easy one but I had to try, still good excuse for anyone that wants to bring him in using TEW lol. Also the same source that claimed the nasties is now claiming Bubba is gone. Whoot.

[TommyDreamerFan]

<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="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Yeah I knew it was an easy one but I had to try, still good excuse for anyone that wants to bring him in using TEW lol. Also the same source that claimed the nasties is now claiming Bubba is gone. Whoot.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> ...This annoys me. Okay I hated Bubba on there as much as the rest of you, but if they wasted the time bringing him in they should of done something with him before firing. And if you were going to fire this guy, WHY WOULDNT YOU DO IT WAY BACK TO KEEP AWESOME KONG?! GOD DAMN!</p>

[jesterx7769]

<p>While not to dump on them completley, I think we all already know the people in charge don't know what they're doing and did not have any solid plans. Which, may work in the long run, but with all the inconsistently I think anyone who thinks Hogan/EB came on January 4th with a 3/4/6 month scripted plan is fooling themselves.</p><p> </p><p>

Also, they don't really have as much as experience or are as smart as people give them credit, they have their reps and power b/c modern wrestling is only 20 years old.</p><p> </p><p>

Hogan's booking/running a company's expereince...</p><p> </p><p>

Hogan: So we have a title match, it should be great and blow the PPV away!...I should win.</p><p> </p><p>

Vince: Great Idea!</p><p> </p><p>

That is the extent of Hogan's booking and running a promotion experience.</p><p> </p><p>

EB's...</p><p> </p><p>

EB: Man we are doing pretty good storyline wise but... lets steal this nWo thing from Japan, no one will know it was from Japan and since we have Hogan</p><p> </p><p>

Hogan: I should win!</p><p> </p><p>

EB: Not now!, anyways, since we have him people will love the nWo angle and I will be treated like a booking God! Oh the company went under? Well thats not my fault. Now I'm on an screen personality for the people who bought us.</p><p> </p><p>

That is EB's experience, remember he was an announcer for a long time then kinda got promoted, he isn't one of these guys that created and ran a promotion himself. Sure he did some good for WCW (I believe I read he was credited internally for WCW turning a profit) but WCW was arguably the biggest promotion at the time (ratings wise) so...wouldn't it be more surprising if he didnt do well there?</p><p> </p><p>

Basically these guys are not your wrestling God's as everyone thought/ thinks. They are not Scot D'Amore, Jim Crocket, Paul Heyman, or even Cornette who has ran his own promotion. As I started this post, this isn't my "Hogan and EB will NEVER do anything good" its just my, I'm not surprised by anything when you look at their experience and really no one else should be surprised either.</p>

[Remianen]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TommyDreamerFan" data-cite="TommyDreamerFan" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>...This annoys me. Okay I hated Bubba on there as much as the rest of you, but if they wasted the time bringing him in they should of done something with him before firing. And if you were going to fire this guy, WHY WOULDNT YOU DO IT WAY BACK TO KEEP AWESOME KONG?! GOD DAMN!</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Hmm? Did I just read TommyDreamerTNAFan#1 actually <strong><em>CRITICIZE</em></strong> the promotion?</p><p> </p><p> UR A H8R, SIR! <img alt=":mad:" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/mad.png.69834f23b9a8bf290d98375f56f1c794.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> Makes perfect sense though, don't it? I mean, I understand the idea of what Bubba did (it's his job, without shock tactics like that, he'd be a poor man's Howard Stern. Oh wait....) and the fact that violence in the workplace cannot be tolerated (hehehehehe), but if they had cut Bubba loose then, they would've scored some MAJOR PR points (as well as kept Kong).</p>

[CQI13]

Because Heyman was so successful with money (also part of running a promotion).

[TommyDreamerFan]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Remianen" data-cite="Remianen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Hmm? Did I just read TommyDreamerTNAFan#1 actually <strong><em>CRITICIZE</em></strong> the promotion?<p> </p><p> UR A H8R, SIR! <img alt=":mad:" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/mad.png.69834f23b9a8bf290d98375f56f1c794.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> Makes perfect sense though, don't it? I mean, I understand the idea of what Bubba did (it's his job, without shock tactics like that, he'd be a poor man's Howard Stern. Oh wait....) and the fact that violence in the workplace cannot be tolerated (hehehehehe), but if they had cut Bubba loose then, they would've scored some MAJOR PR points (as well as kept Kong).</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I know! I know! I hate myself! <img alt=":(" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/frown.png.e6b571745a30fe6a6f2e918994141a47.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /> I'm going to go eat bowls of ice cream and watch ROH tapes from 5 years ago! WAAAAA!!!! I'M A MONSTER!</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <img alt=":rolleyes:" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/rolleyes.png.4b097f4fbbe99ce5bcd5efbc1b773ed6.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /> lol</p>

[Remianen]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="CQI13" data-cite="CQI13" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Because Heyman was so successful with money (also part of running a promotion).</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> But to be fair, TNA has the financial staff in place to counter Heyman. Besides, Heyman would probably get more out of the people they already have contracted than anyone else. He wouldn't have money issues with TNA (similar to how he didn't have money issues with the 'E. It was creative differences that led to his departure, wasn't it?). Heyman would be running the onscreen/creative product. The money wouldn't (and shouldn't) be his area of influence.</p><p> </p><p> There's a vast difference between being CEO and being <strong><em>CHAIRMAN</em></strong> & CEO. Heyman was the former in WWE (creatively, at least for Smackdown) and the latter in ECW (Tod Gordon was a figurehead, for all intents and purposes). I point to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_fiorina" rel="external nofollow">Carly Fiorina</a> (as much as I love her) as an example of what giving a creative person carte blanche can do to an organization (in ANY industry).</p>

[Hyde Hill]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TommyDreamerFan" data-cite="TommyDreamerFan" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>...This annoys me. Okay I hated Bubba on there as much as the rest of you, but if they wasted the time bringing him in they should of done something with him before firing. And if you were going to fire this guy, WHY WOULDNT YOU DO IT WAY BACK TO KEEP AWESOME KONG?! GOD DAMN!</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Lol seems I got you guys with the double dupe, first an obvious one and then an innocuous one its still April the 1st mates hehe.<img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /> Still Fire Bubba!</p>

[TheOmniWarrior]

Did TNA do a replay tonight? Im in California so if they did it didnt start here yet

[Moe Hunter]

That was simply an awesome wrestling show. Booking that made sense, a great segment with Pope, Anderson cut a good promo (seems like maybe he's finally getting his feet under him in TNA), Lethal's hilarious as always...

 

It wasn't rushed - even the short matches had more time than other short matches I've seen from them, and they concluded nicely. Hell, even Jarrett had a good match that I really enjoyed.

 

 

Only bad parts:

*OJ's segment was out of place. If he had cut a promo or done *anything* wrestling related, it might have been okay.

*RVD and Hardy suck at promos. Especially Hardy. "We're gonna have a steel cage MATCH!" Seriously? How long has this guy been a wrestler and watched wrestling, and he can't even put emphasis on the right words?

*Abyss and Jarrett closing the show. That was a throwaway promo that should have happened in the middle of the show.

 

Oh, by the way - was I the only one *blown away* by how good Hogan's Macho Man impersonation was? I think he's actually better at it than Lethal.

 

If this had been the 1/4 show instead of the cluster we got, I think TNA's ratings would be in much better shape.

[MattitudeV2]

Did TNA do a replay tonight? Im in California so if they did it didnt start here yet

 

No, They had Rob Zombie's Halloween on and a Chuck Lidell bio.

[fatallylost]

Did TNA do a replay tonight? Im in California so if they did it didnt start here yet

 

I'm not sure of you cable/satellite situation. Personally, I have Time Warner, and I watch Raw on HD at 6, and TNA comes on at 9, so I can watch/record either of them.

 

Same way I always got to see Raw and Nitro back in the day.

[Stennick]

While not to dump on them completley, I think we all already know the people in charge don't know what they're doing and did not have any solid plans. Which, may work in the long run, but with all the inconsistently I think anyone who thinks Hogan/EB came on January 4th with a 3/4/6 month scripted plan is fooling themselves.

 

Also, they don't really have as much as experience or are as smart as people give them credit, they have their reps and power b/c modern wrestling is only 20 years old.

 

Hogan's booking/running a company's expereince...

 

Hogan: So we have a title match, it should be great and blow the PPV away!...I should win.

 

Vince: Great Idea!

 

That is the extent of Hogan's booking and running a promotion experience.

 

EB's...

 

EB: Man we are doing pretty good storyline wise but... lets steal this nWo thing from Japan, no one will know it was from Japan and since we have Hogan

 

Hogan: I should win!

 

EB: Not now!, anyways, since we have him people will love the nWo angle and I will be treated like a booking God! Oh the company went under? Well thats not my fault. Now I'm on an screen personality for the people who bought us.

 

That is EB's experience, remember he was an announcer for a long time then kinda got promoted, he isn't one of these guys that created and ran a promotion himself. Sure he did some good for WCW (I believe I read he was credited internally for WCW turning a profit) but WCW was arguably the biggest promotion at the time (ratings wise) so...wouldn't it be more surprising if he didnt do well there?

 

Basically these guys are not your wrestling God's as everyone thought/ thinks. They are not Scot D'Amore, Jim Crocket, Paul Heyman, or even Cornette who has ran his own promotion. As I started this post, this isn't my "Hogan and EB will NEVER do anything good" its just my, I'm not surprised by anything when you look at their experience and really no one else should be surprised either.

 

I disagree with EB being a one trick pony. Eric did exactly what Vince did he looked at ECW and took things from it. Eric took the high impact, high octane cruiserweight/lucha wrestling Vince took harcore wrestling (toned down), edgy characters/storylines, etc. For the record he turned a profit in 1994 before there was even such a thing as "winning the ratings" or before he was even close to being the biggest promotion in the world popularity wise.

 

Eric made them a profit so the argument that Eric took Ted's money is false. Eric was making a profit before he brought in Hogan. Then he brought in Macho, Hogan, etc. and was making an even bigger profit which is exactly what you'd want to see from a company aspect. Make us money on a small level, we'll then give you money to up your level and we expect you to make more money and he did that.

 

He brought WCW from Saturday night evening slot far far away from anything Vince was doing to running right at him in Monday nights. Vince had a two year head start in monday night wrestling and Eric's first night head to head he either beat Vince or came close to it.

 

Not only that he did smart things like stagger his commercial breaks differently than Vince's so when RAW was on commerical Eric was in the middle of a match or an angle or something of that nature. He KNEW Vince was on commercial because he'd comment on it.

 

Eric did a TON to revolutionize the business in 1995/96 he created the multiple PPV months, Thunder was before Smackdown so he created the "two A Shows" theory.

 

He gave guys like Sullivan and Taylor the book for the under card while he booked the main event. For the first three years doing this it worked. It gave us undercard feuds for guys like Jericho, Guerrero, etc. it gave us awesome crusierweight action as well as gave Eric the chance to run the hottest angle in pro wrestling history. Was it perfect? Of course not it was highly flawed and when it came time to give it up the people Eric was working with didn't want to .

 

Eric made money for a company that had never made money in its entire existence before he was in charge. He created the hottest angle in the history of pro wrestling, ARGUABLLY the most famous stable in pro wrestling history, as well as being the only man to beat Vince McMahon in any real victory in pro wrestling.

 

Eric did a lot of things right. Did he take some things from other places? He sure did but a worker by the name of Ric Flair borrowed a few things, Vince borrowed a few things. Wrestling like any other form of enteraintment takes things and either makes them better or worsens them.

 

What allowed Eric to do a lot of the things he did was the exact same thing that did him in. He was able to beat Vince by having guys like Hogan, Hall, Nash, etc. He was able to get them by giving them very expensive contracts that on top of that gave them creative control.

 

I'm not saying I enjoy what Eric's doing today or that he's a god in pro wrestling but you can't discredit everything he did by saying it was JUST the nWo he was winning in the ratings before Hall and Nash showed up.