3 Hour Impact Rating is in: How much did it draw?...

[dwith73]

I am a big WWE fan, but i have to admit since the rock, stonecold, and kurt angle left WWE, their programming is absolutely in the toilet. HHH having sex with a dead body in a coffin, gay marriages, and terrible terrible promos that miss the fun mark (especially by DX). The same matches week in and week out with the same wrestlers. It's stale and beginning to mold. Maybe with TNA pushing the envelope the programming on both shows will improve along with the wrestling. Great concept. Ore wrestling on a wrestling show. Hmmmm.

 

[miroa12004]

Guys who are bashing TNA's "low" rating need to get their numbers straight, Smackdown which is WWE's second show, and has much more fan base than TNA, scored a 1.9 earlier this year and it had Jeff, Hunter, Taker and Edge, plus it is established on Fridays and has been there for 10 years, you could say that Fridays not to many people watch but that rating was with the DVR included.Smackdown, before the network switch usually got low 2s in 2008, and if I remember correctly, their 10th anniversarry show didn't pass the 2.5 mark, so for TNA to get a 1.5 at an unusual time for them, against an established RAW with Bret's return and the Fiest Bowl, means that they are not far behind Smackdown and thats only their first night, certainly with more advertising and more effort in their presentation of their product and their storylines and more emphasis on the young guys, plus going out of the impact zone, they could very well become a legit competitor in terms of TV viewership to the WWE.

I just hope they continue building momentum for their upcoming iMPACT! using the momentum they built from this show.

 

[SavageTaker]

This rating is a huge improvement for TNA. Not only did they set a record for their highest rating ever but they also set a new record for viewership. Also, remember that the show was for 3 hours. It’s pretty common for the rating to be lower because of the first hour so the rating for the traditional two hours should be higher. And then there’s the fact that they were not only going head to head with Raw but they were also facing competition from the Fiesta Bowl. So if the Fiesta Bowl wasn’t airing then the rating could have also been higher. Who knows, maybe them airing on a Thursday night was really the problem with the ratings all along. They moved their show to a different day and it did better than usual in the ratings so that might make Spike TV officials/executives consider moving TNA to a different day.

I really hope that the rating is very encouraging for TNA. I know Dixie said the rating was irrelevant, but I figured they must care at least a little about it since they were testing waters and they wanted to see how good they would do. They obviously did very good here and should be proud. Their hard work for the past 7 or 8 years is finally paying off and I hope it continues to pay off because they’ve earned everything they have now. TNA has single handedly made wrestling exciting for me again and I can’t wait to see what other surprises they have and what else they have in store for us, the fans.

 

[burnout4200]

I watched that show with goosebumps and I couldn't wait to get online and hear all of the rave reviews. Then I see the opposite. It depresses me really. It lets me know that I'm never going to be happy reading these forums and it's just gonna piss me off every time. TNA put on a better show than RAW has since early in the decade, but that doesn't matter. The initials are still TNA and people will always shit on them.

RAW with Bret Hart had a lower rating than RAW with Timbaland and probably even Seth Green. Why do you think that is? It couldn't be that the internet darling The Hitman isn't really a draw. None of you will ever admit that. Then the only other option is TNA stole some of WWE's viewers when noone thought it could happen against Hart. As a TNA fan I'll admit I got spooked when they got Hart. I didn't even think they'd top their previous 1.3. While watching the show I was amazed and quickly changed my mind while expecting at least a 2.0. While watching RAW during Impact commercials I thought that 2.0 was a lock. Their big tag team match was between 4 guys who've been fighting for a decade now. The rest of the show was bland and stale just like expected, even The Hitman segments.

Lets put this in a different perspective. How about College Football vs The NFL? There's no way College should be able to compete. Now imagine if their normal Saturday rating actually went up on a Sunday and they stole some NFL viewers. How is that not a win for them? They proved they can hang with the big boys even though the majority of people believe it isn't possible. Not only did they hang but they improved their normal rating.

You complain about stale WWE then you won't support the competition that could force WWE to write a better show. TNA moved up a spot in the world of wrestling. If they drew a 1.5 against RAW then next Thursday they might draw even more viewers without that direct competition.

The fact is I haven't been that entertained since the last time I saw Sting in the rafters. Go ahead and be Anti-TNA over your unjustified pride. Enjoy your cookie cutter show while I actually enjoy having new developments on every show. The fans almost make me want to quit watching WWE more so than the product does. You're like a bunch of Yankees fans bragging that your the best when it's only because noone else can match your payroll. Other teams may have better coaching and actually be more entertaining but that doesn't matter. You stick with the sure thing and shit on everything else just because you think it makes you look cool and right when the playoffs roll around. If women actually read your forum posts none of you would get laid because you'd seem like the most negative person they've ever met.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Guys who are bashing TNA's "low" rating need to get their numbers straight, Smackdown which is WWE's second show, and has much more fan base than TNA, scored a 1.9 earlier this year and it had Jeff, Hunter, Taker and Edge, plus it is established on Fridays and has been there for 10 years, you could say that Fridays not to many people watch but that rating was with the DVR included.Smackdown, before the network switch usually got low 2s in 2008, and if I remember correctly, their 10th anniversarry show didn't pass the 2.5 mark, so for TNA to get a 1.5 at an unusual time for them, against an established RAW with Bret's return and the Fiest Bowl, means that they are not far behind Smackdown and thats only their first night, certainly with more advertising and more effort in their presentation of their product and their storylines and more emphasis on the young guys, plus going out of the impact zone, they could very well become a legit competitor in terms of TV viewership to the WWE.

I just hope they continue building momentum for their upcoming iMPACT! using the momentum they built from this show.

Yeah, keep in mind however that not everybody gets My Network TV, and sometimes Smackdown gets pre-empted for some sort of sporting event in some major markets. Furthermore, Smackdown airs on Friday nights, when people usually have plans and are doing stuff where watching wrestling is quite low on their priorities.

And to give everyone another reality check, here's the proof that Raw didn't get just a 3.37.

Monday's edition of WWE Raw featuring Bret Hart's return averaged 5.60 million viewers, which was the largest viewing audience since the Raw after Summerslam on August 24.

The show drew a very strong rating among males 18-49, drawing a 3.37 rating in the key demo. That was the highest rating since the commercial-free Raw on June 22 averaged a 3.71 rating.

Again, TNA not going below a 1.1 last night against the WWE is amazing for them and they should be happy. However, by no means should Vince concede defeat to TNA like some people have been saying.

 

[BooCocky]

Wait, People are happy about this? From what I have read the show lost a lot of viewers after the first hour and the show peeked at Hogan. If this is all they have to offer Vince will never have to worry. Raw had 5.6 million viewers and did very well in the 18-34 demographic. IMO TNA should be ashamed of themselves. They had all that advertisement even advertising during Raw and this is all they get? ROFL. just go back to Thursday night TNA, you didn't do anything to hurt the WWE. Vince showed why he owns the wrestling business.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

TNA drawing a 1.5 is a good number for them. It's the highest rating they've ever drawn, though not by much. It's a good number overall, but it's nothing to get carried away over. Now, if TNA is able to maintain the type of interest that that they generated last night through their regular day and time, things might be looking up for them ratings wise.

According to PWTorch.com, Raw also had a very good night. According to the site, WWE Raw averaged 5.6 million viewers last night. The show also drew a 3.4 nielsen rating in the 18-49 demographic, which is the largest Raw has drawn in that demo since the commercial free episode of Raw. Now, that 3.4 isn't what the show drew for the night, that's just in those particular demographics. An audience of 5.6 million is the largest Raw audience since the Raw following SummerSlam. That show pulled a 3.9 in the nielsen ratings, which means that last night's show pulled very close to or pulled the same number.

 

[Kenny Powers]

You're right Brock WWE isn't going to be loosing sleep over their ratings and they did good but they dropped from 3.6 the first hour to 3.4. I'm not taking away from WWE but that isn't great considering Bret was the host. Didn't Shaq get at least a 3.6 or over?

TNA had 1.7 the first hour and 1.9 the second hour facing against Bret Hart. Maybe small potatoes but TNA maintained their audience until the final hour which ended them up at 1.5. Obviously WWE were going to win last night but TNA surprised me that they were able to get a 1.7 to a 1.9 the first two hours on Monday night. It doesn't mean TNA are legit competition yet, but definitely they are in the right direction.

 

[dwith73]

Wait, People are happy about this? From what I have read the show lost a lot of viewers after the first hour and the show peeked at Hogan. If this is all they have to offer Vince will never have to worry. Raw had 5.6 million viewers and did very well in the 18-34 demographic. IMO TNA should be ashamed of themselves. They had all that advertisement even advertising during Raw and this is all they get? ROFL. just go back to Thursday night TNA, you didn't do anything to hurt the WWE. Vince showed why he owns the wrestling business.

No one is saying that TNA beat WWE last night in any ratings, but quality wise TNA put on a better show, with some different angles and some new talent to show case on further shows. You are a obvious TNA hater, fr that reason that just makes you ignorant. It's not just about Vince Mcmahon. That why wrestling has sucked as much as it has since wcw closed. We have really had nothing to compare WWE shows to until has stepped up. We are used to seeing the same crap spew every week from raw, and now TNA shows us theres something different out there, and you see it as different so you bash TNA. Shame on you. Your not a wrestling fan, your a WWE fan.

 

[psykohurricane]

So TNA 1.5 in the ratings for last night show. Big Deal, they were getting 1.3 and 1.4 ratings last year when it was all about comedy characters. The point is last night was a 3 hour impact special and it only did 1.5. Now the real test begins, how much peoples are they able to keep watching IMPACT next week? That's the real question.

If they go back to the 0.9 ratings they use to have before Hogan came in, that's not good. In fact, that pretty much what they don'T want to happen. Last night show was pretty decent, even with all the recycles storyline they used with Hogan and friends, so now let's see if Hogan and company can keep the rating up or if they are just going to fail like so many other have before.

 

[I_AM_AWSOME]

i am 13 and i was wwe mark but i got tired of there boring shit and when i tuned in to tna's big showw i was impressed it was way better than raw. it had great matches and it was entertaning. im surprised that it didnt get a better rating but 1.5 is still good for tna. they should stay on mondays and see where this goes because i will still keep watching but they got to keep up with their hard work. wwe busted there ass to get at the top and so should TNA.

 

[The Champ]

They got .5 higher than their usual rating while going head to head against the biggest weekly wrestling show of all time, featuring the return of Bret "The Hitman" Hart for the first time in over twelve years. That's a success in my book. Now the question is whether they can keep their momentum in the weeks to come, because dropping back down to a 1 won't accomplish anything. They need to getting these kind of ratings on a consistent basis if they ever want WWE to take them seriously. I also think that focusing too much on the older guys would be a mistake. They need to be there to draw the fans in and serve somewhat limited roles while guys like Styles really have their time to shine, and keep the fans interested for a longer period of time. Because let's be honest, rehashing the nWo is only going to be interesting for so long. And once the new fans get bored of that, they need to have built up their own stars to the point where people don't just stop watching.

 

[justinept]

I'll admit that I'm a WWE fan. I'll admit that I don't watch TNA very often - if ever - because when I do watch, I simply can't stand their production quality (I don't care what people say. If the show is on television, then the production is a huge part of the product.)

I really, really wanted to give TNA a chance last night, though. I want TNA to succeed. Wrestling was a lot more fun when WCW and WWE were competing for viewers, and I seriously hope that TNA can push WWE in that same way because Raw hasn't been consistently good for a while - their few good shows have been few and far between.

Unfortunately, after an hour of watching TNA, I came to the conclusion that TNA wasn't ready to push WWE. So I switched the station to Raw and only caught about 4-5 more minutes of TNA's show. Because of that, I won''t act like I know what happened in the final 2 hours of the show.

However, I will say that what I saw in the first hour was the complete opposite of what I hear most TNA fans claim the company to be.

1) TNA is about wrestling! ... Really? In the first hour there were TWO matches. TWO! One was a women's match and the other match featured a structure that obstructed the camera's view and ended in a DQ. Their third match, roughly 80 minutes into the show was another women's match.

2) TNA is about the younger talent! ... Really? In the first hour, I saw promos by Mick Foley and Kevin Nash. I saw Ric Flair get out of a limousine. I saw four or five cut-away shots to Hulk Hogan's limousine before arriving with Eric Bischoff. I saw Sean Waltman and Scott Hall break into the arena. I saw Sting in the rafters. My God, I thought I was watching WCW. If only they would shown have cut-away to Goldberg banging his head on some lockers backstage, I'd have been satisfied...

The problem I saw with TNA in the first hour last night was that they didn't try to expose their product. They didn't try to distinguish themselves from the WWE. They simply tried to play the WWE's game.

From what I've read, the show did get better in the final two hours, but by then - for a lot of people - it was too late. The WWE fans who wanted to give TNA a chance had already changed the channel, and TNA had lost on their opportunity to expose the WWE fan base to a product that was any different from the WWE product.

 

[Reddannihilation]

This already got posted in another thread but I think it's needed here. http://www.multichannel.com/article...stling_Special_Draws_2_2_Million_Viewers_.php

TNA got 2.2million viewers, with the first hour pulling 2.5mil. WWE pulled 5.5mill but that's almost a whole point higher than what had been reported earlier for TNA.

 

[Belladonna29]

Good to see that Impact held it's own against Raw.

As already stated, the last time TNA went head-to-head with Raw, they lost a significant chuck of their audience.
This time, they sustained and gained some viewers overall.

People switching over to see Raw with Bret on it was expected, but at least they went up instead of down.
Now, they have to build off of this so perhaps they can start going against Raw down the road.

 

[klunderbunker]

This is about what I expected. It's a very big jump, but it's ahrd to say what it really means. For one thing, there still was the Fiesta Bowl which was a game a lot of people wanted to see and which was a good game so that's going to take viewers away from both shows. I really want to see the quarter breakdowns here though. The first hour is going to be much higher, so I'm wondering if that's really high and then the rest are really low or of it's consistent. Still, 1.5 is good, but it's not blowing away anything at all.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

If TNA weren't trying to get ahead of themselves then maybe they'd have had the same show, but on a different day. That way they wouldn't have shared the wrestling audience. iMPACT! on Thursday like usual, with no competition could've got a much larger rating. Instead they got a ''good by TNA standards'' rating and they still lost to WWE.

 

[Shocky]

From what I've read, the hightest Quarter hour rating was Hogan at 1.9. TNA started the show off hot, I think the first hour was around 1.7, then 1.5, and the final hour around a 1.3 or so. That's not a good sign considering TNA was unable to have a hold on the audience throughout the night, and losing more viewers as the night went on.

However, a 1.5 for the over all show is good news for TNA. It's their highest number to date, against Raw and a Bowl game. I'm just hoping TNA didn't blow it's wad all on one night.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

TNA did quite well by their standards. I think that, if they'd possibly aired the show live on a Thursday, they could have potentially drawn very close to a 2.0 but I don't think they'd have drawn more than that.

The first hour of iMPACT pulled in a 1.7 rating, which was much higher than their greatest overall total of a 1.3 at that time. However, the show did lose viewers throughout that night as the second hour drew a 1.4 and the third hour drew a 1.2. While it was definitely an above average night for TNA in the ratings, losing viewers as the show goes on isn't a great sign.

Don't get me wrong, TNA should be happy with the 1.5 they drew for the overall show but let's not get carried away with this. In the actual head to head race against Raw in the 9-11 pm slot, TNA drew a 1.3. While still above average for what TNA's been doing for the past several months, the first hour without competition from the WWE is what ultimately gave TNA the overall boost and increase in ratings that it was looking for.

 

[Razor]

First of all, this is obviously an increase. Hogan, apparently, can draw. A good half a point, at that. Cena was responsible for a good .5 drop/increase during his injury and return. That really makes me want to make a thread about Cena's drawing power and Hogan's. Of course, this is nothing like Hogan in his heyday, but that would be a hilariously fun thread.

At any rate, I'm intrigued by KB's post. That first hour had to have been a lot stronger than before Raw started...so what does that have to mean about the last 2 hours of the show? Apparently, it spiked during the Hogan returning and faded after that. I would like to comment on one thing though; the Wolfe/Pope match drew a 1.16 quarter-hour rating from what I've seen.

Jake brings up a wonderful point. Even with TNA going head to head with WWE, they still pulled only about half of what Raw pulled for that night. Raw had a 3.37, and TNA had a 1.69. TNA averaged 2.5 million viewers, and Raw grabbed 5.60 million viewers. All this showed was that TNA could have done sooo much better on another night. Say, their usual Thursday night?

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Jake brings up a wonderful point. Even with TNA going head to head with WWE, they still pulled only about half of what Raw pulled for that night. Raw had a 3.37, and TNA had a 1.69. TNA averaged 2.5 million viewers, and Raw grabbed 5.60 million viewers. All this showed was that TNA could have done sooo much better on another night. Say, their usual Thursday night?

Well, the final Raw ratings won't be out until sometime today, but with an audience of 5.6 million, the overall Nielsen Rating will be more than a 3.37. The 3.37 figure that's being tossed around is the Nielsen Rating Raw drew in the 18-49 demographic. That's the biggest Raw's drawn in that demo since the commercial free episode. According to everything I've read, an audience of 5.6 million is Raw's biggest since the August 24th edition of Raw, which was just after SummerSlam, and that show pulled in a 3.9 Nielsen Rating. So, the final Raw rating should be very close to the 3.9 ballpark. And yeah, I agree that TNA probably would have done a little better on their usual night, though I still don't think TNA could do more than a 2.0 at this point.

 

[MisterRob]

So let me get this straight, TNA fans are happy and actually find it an accomplishment that TNA broke their previous record and got a 1.5 rating which is .2s above their previous standards? Are you kidding me? Of course they were going to beat their records in viewership. That shouldn't have ever been in question. They had Hulk Hogan, the supposed biggest draw in wrestling history, physically debuting in TNA for the first time.. had advertised and promoted and hyped this night through the roof.. anyone who thought breaking their measly record of before wasn't a given really had very little faith in the product they watch. If they hadn't done better then their best then it would've been a complete and utter failure! But being happy about a .2 rise? Wow. Without Hogan, without all the surprises and all the hype, the big names and the expectations, TNA has gotten a 1.3 in the past. I don't think people are realizing how little they gained and how small a step they've taken with this rating.

And that's not even taking into account the fact that the show had a first hour unopposed by anything to build on. What did it do in that first hour? A 1.9 at it's peak (not all hour). That is a valid judgment of what TNA would've done on Thursday, unopposed by any other wrestling product on Monday night's. That's the best number they would've gotten, because that's their peak number. So yes, it would've been a great idea to have remained on Thursday and gone unopposed, because they would've gotten a better number, but only for Hogan's debut, then it would've dwindled away anyway. But what's truly telling is the fact that TNA's numbers plummetted and declined after that Hogan peak. It proves that the majority watching wasn't interested in anything but a one time memory of Hogan debuting. They weren't interested in staying for the product. They weren't interested in Hogan for more then one segment. They turned the channel and tuned out the rest of the show... except for TNA's regular fanbase (1.3, because that's the best they've previously gotten). So in the end TNA gained nothing this Monday night. They ended up with the same numbers they've had all along, with no new audience and no new fans. That's the hard truth, and it's a damn shame. I put the sole blame on their product though and nothing else, it needs drastic changes.

WWE on the other hand clearly has the momentum, despite what TNA's fanbase would pretend is the case. WWE had huge ratings and by the end of the show they kept that audience and ended the show with a huge number, including ending the show with a cliffhanger and a reason for that audience to come back and see what's going to happen next. That's the difference between WWE and TNA. You can say what you want about WWE's product.. that it's stale, boring, etc, etc, and I won't argue with that because I don't even watch the product anymore (besides glimpses and online videos). But WWE knows how to make a product that flows from beginning until end, that builds upto something, and that draws in ratings. WWE did everything right on Monday because they built an audience and with the Vince/Bret angle, and the Road to Wrestlemania, the next while of WWE programming is likely going to continue to keep up pace and at least keep people interested. And that is why WWE won the night, has the clear momentum, and why I said before TNA failed in exactly what they hoped to accomplish because of the audience they DIDN'T have at the end of the night.

 

[NSL]

1.5 isn't as good as I had hoped, but a 50% increase in ratings is pretty damn good. I figured they'd peak during the first hour, and then they'd fall off, but they still did a decent rating for each quarter hour, and for the show as a whole.

Next week is the true litmus test. Do people still want to tune in? How many new viewers are hooked? How many fans did they lose? There's still a lot of questions left to answer.

 

[multiverseman.com]

So let me get this straight, TNA fans are happy and actually find it an accomplishment that TNA broke their previous record and got a 1.5 rating which is .2s above their previous standards? Are you kidding me? Of course they were going to beat their records in viewership. That shouldn't have ever been in question. They had Hulk Hogan, the supposed biggest draw in wrestling history, physically debuting in TNA for the first time.. had advertised and promoted and hyped this night through the roof.. anyone who thought breaking their measly record of before wasn't a given really had very little faith in the product they watch. If they hadn't done better then their best then it would've been a complete and utter failure! But being happy about a .2 rise? Wow. Without Hogan, without all the surprises and all the hype, the big names and the expectations, TNA has gotten a 1.3 in the past. I don't think people are realizing how little they gained and how small a step they've taken with this rating.

You're being intentionally negative with your spin and don't seem to be looking at all the factors.

Hype: they didn't hype it through the roof because they have no marketing skills. They're no good at hyping anything through the roof. They had ads on Spike, a few ads outside Spike, and a billboard. That's it. Their biggest advertising was Hogan's mouth.

I love it when I discuss successes and failures on the internet regarding wrestling, music, movies, comics, and someone inevitably always trots out the argument "given all the hype and expectation". Whose expectations? Unless you expected more and didn't get it (detractors never seem to expect much of anything) then the worst TNA did was meet those low expecations.

Third, they went up against not only direct competition, but the biggest wrestling company in the world, the king of the genre. Nay, they went at biggest wrestling company revisiting the biggest angle in history, and didn't just maintain, but increased. While the competition itself increased. They should've gotten shut out, but thrived. I'd call that an accomplishment.

And that's not even taking into account the fact that the show had a first hour unopposed by anything to build on.

How do you build on an unopposed hour in this situation. The best they could do when RAW began was to maintain. And they did, they exceeded or matched their best ratings ever for the second hour. The final hour did above their usual average and very close to the same as their highest rated shows to that point, against the culmination of the entire RAW show. It also featured a match of the year candidate and the brightest star in the industry, and him being put over by Hogan.

WWE on the other hand clearly has the momentum, despite what TNA's fanbase would pretend is the case. WWE had huge ratings and by the end of the show they kept that audience and ended the show with a huge number, including ending the show with a cliffhanger and a reason for that audience to come back and see what's going to happen next. That's the difference between WWE and TNA. You can say what you want about WWE's product.. that it's stale, boring, etc, etc, and I won't argue with that because I don't even watch the product anymore (besides glimpses and online videos). But WWE knows how to make a product that flows from beginning until end, that builds upto something, and that draws in ratings. WWE did everything right on Monday because they built an audience and with the Vince/Bret angle, and the Road to Wrestlemania, the next while of WWE programming is likely going to continue to keep up pace and at least keep people interested. And that is why WWE won the night, has the clear momentum, and why I said before TNA failed in exactly what they hoped to accomplish because of the audience they DIDN'T have at the end of the night.

WWE won the night because they had Bret and because they're a juggernaut with a built-in standard. Wrestling fans were going to pick Bret/McMahon over anything TNA had, bar none, point blank, no question. However it was a poor show and the ratings will go down next week. Hell, I watch RAW every Monday and have for ten years, bad or not. If I'm given a choice, I will switch to a live TNA on Monday and I don't doubt that many will be checking for both. That's a good start.

Also, as Heyman stated, Spike executives will be pouring over numbers thoroughly. There's much to learn and implement. The next head to head will improve on this one quality-wise.

 

[MisterRob]

You're being intentionally negative with your spin and don't seem to be looking at all the factors.

I disagree entirely. I think I'm being realistic, sorry if the reality is negative to you.

Hype: they didn't hype it through the roof because they have no marketing skills. They're no good at hyping anything through the roof. They had ads on Spike, a few ads outside Spike, and a billboard. That's it. Their biggest advertising was Hogan's mouth.

They didn't hype it through the roof? They hyped it on UFC, which garners a huge fan base and bigger numbers then TNA, the exact fan base they're aiming for and wanting to get, in fact. Hogan was on talk shows, on radio stations, they had a press conference from Madison Square Garden. They had a huge billboard in downtown New York. No, they didn't go out of their way to market and advertise, not at all.

I love it when I discuss successes and failures on the internet regarding wrestling, music, movies, comics, and someone inevitably always trots out the argument "given all the hype and expectation". Whose expectations? Unless you expected more and didn't get it (detractors never seem to expect much of anything) then the worst TNA did was meet those low expecations.

The expectations of TNA fans. The expectations of everyone within TNA that went on and on about competing with WWE, and certainly the expectations of Hogan who claimed they'd be getting big ratings.

Third, they went up against not only direct competition, but the biggest wrestling company in the world, the king of the genre. Nay, they went at biggest wrestling company revisiting the biggest angle in history, and didn't just maintain, but increased. While the competition itself increased. They should've gotten shut out, but thrived. I'd call that an accomplishment.

Why should they have gotten shut out? They had Hogan, they had lots of hype, they had the interest of fans and this false idea of a Monday Night War. There's no way they should've been shut out in the least. There's no way they shouldn't have gotten the numbers of at least their constant, consistent TNA fan base. They've been getting 1.1s and 1.2s, something people keep ignoring or downplaying to make it seem like they had some huge increase. 1.3 is TNA's best rating, that means 1.3 is the audience TNA could've gotten, have gotten before, and are TNA fans and those who are aware of the product. You can put up blinders and twist the facts all you want, but TNA's increase in new viewers and a new fan base that has never watched TNA before is an increase of .2. That's it. I don't care if TNA fans stopped watching for a while because the product sucked and suddenly came back for Monday night to give a product they've watched, been involved with, enjoyed at one time, another chance or not, they're still the same audience.

I also don't care what numbers they did going into the show unopposed by anything else, or riding the interest of the hype. What matters is the audience they had at the end of the night. If you're playing a game of poker and you win hands at the start, increase what you started with, only to start getting a bad hand and losing everything you gained to end up even at the end of the night, what do you gain? There's no increase. There's no accomplishment. You don't get praise for reaching a plateau you've already reached, ending up at the best you've already been. The lost any viewers they gained over the course of the final two hours (not just the last hour) and ended up with the same numbers and the same fan base they had going in. That's the reality. Sorry if you want to sugar coat it.

How do you build on an unopposed hour in this situation. The best they could do when RAW began was to maintain. And they did, they exceeded or matched their best ratings ever for the second hour. The final hour did above their usual average and very close to the same as their highest rated shows to that point, against the culmination of the entire RAW show. It also featured a match of the year candidate and the brightest star in the industry, and him being put over by Hogan.

How do you build on an unopposed hour? Quite easily. You make the people watching that first hour, when you're unopposed and no one else is tugging the audience away.. which was clear wrestling fans were watching the first hour by the numbers (because RAW wasn't on to turn to), get drawn into your product and you give them a product they want to see and can't turn off. You pull them into the first hour so they don't have any reason or desire to turn the channel to RAW because TNA's product is so good. If they wanted to see Bret Hart, then fine, they could've in the first fifteen minutes. But they stayed on RAW, and RAW's audience increased from there.. while no one turned back to TNA, and they gradually lost all interest in TNA (except for the same fanbase TNA's gotten over the course of the past few years). The 1.5 rating is based on the average of the three hours and it's 1.5 because of the first, unopposed hour, otherwise it would've been the same mediocre number as their best rating. It proves that TNA didn't gain anything, they did the same as they always do. Great! And it certainly proves just why they need to really work on their product.

WWE won the night because they had Bret and because they're a juggernaut with a built-in standard. Wrestling fans were going to pick Bret/McMahon over anything TNA had, bar none, point blank, no question. However it was a poor show and the ratings will go down next week. Hell, I watch RAW every Monday and have for ten years, bad or not. If I'm given a choice, I will switch to a live TNA on Monday and I don't doubt that many will be checking for both. That's a good start.

That's your opinion. My opinion is that Impact was a horrible show (not that I'm giving WWE praise for theirs either). Our opinions don't matter, what does matter is the ratings and the majority of fans and audience watching, and it's clear they were far more interested in WWE and won't be switching back to a live TNA show on Monday.

Also, as Heyman stated, Spike executives will be pouring over numbers thoroughly. There's much to learn and implement. The next head to head will improve on this one quality-wise.

That's not saying much.