Round 2: Dave -vs- Ferbian

[D-Man]

True or False. TNA were doing so much better as a company before Hulk Hogan took over.

This is a second round match in the Debater's League. Dave is the home debater and gets to choose which side of the debate they will be on and who debates first, but they have 24 hours to make their choice.

This thread is for DEBATERS ONLY and will end on Friday at 2pm EST.

Good luck.​

 

[Dave]

I will be debating that they WERE NOT doing better before Hogan took over. Ferbian can go first...

 

[Ferbian]

Thank you Dave, and good luck to you sir.

I will be discussing the fact that Hogan's arrival practically ruined TNA. And quite frankly that is exactly what it did, TNA were creatively on a high place until Hogan and company arrived. Yes I know, surprising for a Russo product. However this is the fact, many fans (on this forum to say the least) has openly expressed their dislike towards the current product that TNA puts on, and guess who's in the back? Hogan and Bischoff.

The TNA product was doing just fine before Hogan arrived, it was pulling some decent ratings for their level of exposure back at that point. They were pulling excellent stories from time to time, much like A.J Styles refreshing run as TNA world champion. Hell I'll admit I was actually interested in TNA back then, I'm not that interested in it anymore, with the exception of an occasional Beautiful People storyline.

TNA might have spiked their ratings for a brief while. Or at least after they decided to move away from Monday nights where they were decisively crushed under the well oiled machine called World Wrestling Entertainment - Monday Night RAW. And guess who made this decision come true? Hogan, Hogan made them move to Monday Nights. Ultimately resulting in them moving away because they couldn't hold a candle to the big boys.

With the arrival of Hulk Hogan, many, and I mean many new talents has arrived. The arguable top of the crop when it comes to popularity and potential in some of them. Great in-ring workers who should very well be able to pop the ratings for them. All people that Hogan has managed to bring in, and to what results? A bigger budget on the bill of Dixie Carter, not bigger ratings.

Overall the product has been degraded to what the common fan probably wouldn't call a good product. And I know very well it might just be an opinion. But in the end, it's a thing shared by many, and it's a thing caused by Hogan's backstage ideas.

And that ladies and gentlemen, is why Hulk Hogan is bad for TNA.

 

[Dave]

First of all, good luck to Ferbian, whom I have the utmost respect for. Let’s give ‘em Hell, homie!

Now, this week, TNA comes under the scrutiny of our posters and in this debate, we will be examining just how successful TNA was before and after the addition of Hulk Hogan to the roster and the Creative Team. Now, my esteemed colleague has already tried to outline why the addition of Hulk Hogan was not a good thing for the TNA product. However, I think differently and in this post, I will hopefully give you some idea as to why I think this to be the correct view.

Hulk-a-mania runs wild on TNA

I know that this might seem like an obvious point but I think it goes some way into detailing how big of a deal the acquisition of Hulk Hogan was. Now, whilst remaining very brief, no one man has had quite the impact on the wrestling business quite like Hulk Hogan. He was basically the first man to bridge the gap between wrestling and the mainstream entertainment market and it was through his charm and guile. Hulk-a-mania swept the wrestling world like wildfire and the remnants of this era are still felt throughout the wrestling world today. It was so successful that it catapulted the WWF to a new level and it was mostly thanks to the undying icon that is Hulk Hogan.

Now, I am not ignorant enough to think that Hogan has the same level of draw that he did back in the day but it does not detract from the fact that if your name is not Stone Cold Steve Austin, then you have not had early the same affect on the wrestling business as Hulk Hogan. The biggest name in wrestling in the last 50 years and beyond is now on TNA and only a fool would suggest that this is detrimental to TNA as a company. It is like the worst team in the league signing the top scorer of the league: of course it makes a difference.

Mainstream entertainment… It matters!

Yes, apparently, it does.

Now listen, I know that Hulk Hogan is not the name he once was. He doesn’t have men eating their vitamins and saying their prayers but he is still a huge deal in the wrestling community and no one could come near to him. Can you remember back to January 4th? If you can, you will remember that the IWC was abuzz with speculation about TNA and who was going to be rocking up on TNA that night. I must admit that even I, the most hardened WWE fan, tuned in to see what would happen on that night.

Now, any other name that isn’t The Rock or Stone Cold Steve Austin could attract that amount of interest and even then, it might not even reach those heights. Now, Hogan - whilst being the biggest star in TNA – has brought this sort of attention to the company. He took them to a new level, in terms of interest and the effects of this are actually still on show. Whilst the company is still putting out a product that many fans will continually turn away from, they have managed to maintain the interest from that initial night.

Ratings… They matter more!

Here is a fact that is irrefutable… Hulk Hogan’s debut on January 4th 2010, gave TNA impact t it’s highest EVER viewership rating. The likes of those 2.9 million viewers will perhaps never be seen again and TNA has Hulk Hogan to than for that. With the crop of people they had before Hogan arrived in TNA, they would never have imagined that they would ever have gotten almost 3 million viewers.

What is even more impressive is that TNA Impact got these numbers up against the WWE’s Monday Night Raw. Although it is a fraction of what WWE regularly get, the return of the Hitman to the WWE was dented slightly by casual fans waiting to see the Icon that is Hulk Hogan. Now, both of these moments were utterly brilliant but in the grand scheme of things, Hogan’s emergence into TNA meant a great deal more to the wrestling world and competition than Bret Hart did. This leads me on to my next point rather nicely…

Progression! It’s happening!

That’s right, it is.

Under the command of Hogan, TNA has gone from strength to strength. Spike TV, although moving it back to Thursday nights have given it a further 2 hours of programming since Hogan took over and now gives 4 hours of primetime viewing to TNA on Thursday nights. A year ago, a lot of people may not have thought this was possible but by getting Hulk Hogan on board, I think that TNA showed Spike TV that they were ready to rumble and the progression of the show has been evident for all to see.

For example, TNA have said that places out-with the US are the key battle grounds in their war with the WWE and in those places, the progression has been swift and unwavering. In the UK, TNA have almost trebled their ratings figures since Hulk Hogan took over and the figures speak for themselves. Good luck debating that, Ferb.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Thank you Dave, and good luck to you sir.

I will be discussing the fact that Hogan's arrival practically ruined TNA. And quite frankly that is exactly what it did, TNA were creatively on a high place until Hogan and company arrived. Yes I know, surprising for a Russo product. However this is the fact, many fans (on this forum to say the least) has openly expressed their dislike towards the current product that TNA puts on, and guess who's in the back? Hogan and Bischoff.

So, tell me Ferbs, what in this paragraph was not true of TNA before Bischoff and Hogan too over?

For every poster on this board who attacks TNA, I will find you a poster who is over the moon with it. It is different strokes for different folks, mate. TNA were terrible before Hogan arrived. Basically, they were a glorified Indy promotion and nothing they had set them out from the rest of the competition. With Hogan on board, it showed both the fans and the WWE that TNA were seriously going to come after them and that is what they have done.

The TNA product was doing just fine before Hogan arrived, it was pulling some decent ratings for their level of exposure back at that point. They were pulling excellent stories from time to time, much like A.J Styles refreshing run as TNA world champion. Hell I'll admit I was actually interested in TNA back then, I'm not that interested in it anymore, with the exception of an occasional Beautiful People storyline.

TNA was doing just fine!? Oh well, wrap up the debate because TNA were doing “fine”.

Look at my figures from before and if you want to check these figures, I have a source for you.

http://pwnewsnow.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1262827056&archive=&start_from=&ucat=6

Now, this source also states that the very hotly contested area of men between the age of 18-49 went up 338% during the Impact in which Hulk Hogan arrived. These are facts and you can prove anything with them.

TNA might have spiked their ratings for a brief while. Or at least after they decided to move away from Monday nights where they were decisively crushed under the well oiled machine called World Wrestling Entertainment - Monday Night RAW. And guess who made this decision come true? Hogan, Hogan made them move to Monday Nights. Ultimately resulting in them moving away because they couldn't hold a candle to the big boys.

Dude, this debate has nothing to do with the WWE. Indirectly, I suppose you could say that they are connected but not for this topic. The topic at hand is whether Hogan has made TNA a better company since his arrival and the WWE has nothing to do with how TNA is run. Yes, it was trying to “compete” with the WWE but I doubt it was even serious. I think that TNA just wanted to let fans know that they were around and serious about their growth. I think they tried to steal some recognition from the WWE and it has worked slightly. The ratings are up from when Hogan took over and the progression of the company remains swift.

With the arrival of Hulk Hogan, many, and I mean many new talents has arrived. The arguable top of the crop when it comes to popularity and potential in some of them. Great in-ring workers who should very well be able to pop the ratings for them. All people that Hogan has managed to bring in, and to what results? A bigger budget on the bill of Dixie Carter, not bigger ratings.

Absolutely incorrect.

I see you are basing your arguments around the ratings criteria. Little do you know that your argument is completely fabricated. Let me take you back to January 2009, the first edition of Impact was shown and received a rating of 0.95 and on the January 4th edition of Impact (against WWE Raw no less) Impact pulled in a 1.45… This was mainly due to Hogan.

Overall the product has been degraded to what the common fan probably wouldn't call a good product. And I know very well it might just be an opinion. But in the end, it's a thing shared by many, and it's a thing caused by Hogan's backstage ideas.

I hope you can prove this?

 

[Ferbian]

Hulk-a-mania runs wild on TNA

I know that this might seem like an obvious point but I think it goes some way into detailing how big of a deal the acquisition of Hulk Hogan was. Now, whilst remaining very brief, no one man has had quite the impact on the wrestling business quite like Hulk Hogan. He was basically the first man to bridge the gap between wrestling and the mainstream entertainment market and it was through his charm and guile. Hulk-a-mania swept the wrestling world like wildfire and the remnants of this era are still felt throughout the wrestling world today. It was so successful that it catapulted the WWF to a new level and it was mostly thanks to the undying icon that is Hulk Hogan.

Yet his arrival did very little to the ratings on iMPACT. Sure they have raised, but for the talent that Hulk Hogan is, he's not exactly pulling the ratings one could expect. I debated this with Tenta in the pre-season, and I still believe Hogan's presence should be more than enough to raise ratings more than they have.

Now, I am not ignorant enough to think that Hogan has the same level of draw that he did back in the day but it does not detract from the fact that if your name is not Stone Cold Steve Austin, then you have not had early the same affect on the wrestling business as Hulk Hogan. The biggest name in wrestling in the last 50 years and beyond is now on TNA and only a fool would suggest that this is detrimental to TNA as a company. It is like the worst team in the league signing the top scorer of the league: of course it makes a difference.

Depends in what manner you look at it. You could sign the top scorer of a league, and he absolutely blows his chances. There has been numerous signs of acquisitions to a promotion, or any other club in any other sport. It doesn't succeed all the times, and Hogan is a good example of this. The ratings may have raised a fair bit, but the product as a whole has been flushed.

Mainstream entertainment… It matters!

Yes, apparently, it does.

Now listen, I know that Hulk Hogan is not the name he once was. He doesn’t have men eating their vitamins and saying their prayers but he is still a huge deal in the wrestling community and no one could come near to him. Can you remember back to January 4th? If you can, you will remember that the IWC was abuzz with speculation about TNA and who was going to be rocking up on TNA that night. I must admit that even I, the most hardened WWE fan, tuned in to see what would happen on that night.

Now I know this is not a WWE vs TNA debate, however I feel this is a worthwhile point to bring up - Bret Hart, nowhere near the draw or anything that Hogan was, and he still managed to keep the ratings and everything flowing on RAW against a debuting Hulk Hogan on TNA. One of the worst draws of the business (arguable, he sure wasn't a big draw at least) managed to keep a shows ratings up high, against the biggest draw in the history of the business.

How exactly does that spell out for the arrival of Hulk Hogan? How does that marked them as mainstream in any way if their "biggest acquisition" in history, could in fact not fulfill the purpose that he ranted on and on about that he wanted to? To compete with RAW, and become noteworthy. This is something I will get back to later on.

Now, any other name that isn’t The Rock or Stone Cold Steve Austin could attract that amount of interest and even then, it might not even reach those heights. Now, Hogan - whilst being the biggest star in TNA – has brought this sort of attention to the company. He took them to a new level, in terms of interest and the effects of this are actually still on show. Whilst the company is still putting out a product that many fans will continually turn away from, they have managed to maintain the interest from that initial night.

Arguable, you can't necessarily say that Hogan, and Hogan only brought TNA to a point where they got the attention of the common fan. And you certainly cannot say that Hogan is indeed the big name that has done it most successfully. How about Kurt Angle? How about any of the other promised debuts on iMPACT, who could in fact have been the very people that had the TNA vs WWE buzzing, and not Hogan?

Ratings… They matter more!

Here is a fact that is irrefutable… Hulk Hogan’s debut on January 4th 2010, gave TNA impact t it’s highest EVER viewership rating. The likes of those 2.9 million viewers will perhaps never be seen again and TNA has Hulk Hogan to than for that. With the crop of people they had before Hogan arrived in TNA, they would never have imagined that they would ever have gotten almost 3 million viewers.

Yet how did it go for iMPACT afterwards Dave? Can you tell me that? Did it not in fact slowly fall downwards once again? Did they in fact not reach a new low in quite a long time a few weeks before they crawled back to Thursdays? Where was the drawing abilities of Hulk Hogan there? Where was the big impact that Hogan was gonna implement on TNA?

Hogan convinced Dixie, and TNA as a whole that it was a worthwhile move to Monday Nights, could you imagine what they could've possibly drawn during Thursday if Hogan had debuted? Or in the whole period that they were on Monday nights? But they weren't, and it was obviously a bad decision, made by none other than Hogan and co.

Progression! It’s happening!

That’s right, it is.

Under the command of Hogan, TNA has gone from strength to strength. Spike TV, although moving it back to Thursday nights have given it a further 2 hours of programming since Hogan took over and now gives 4 hours of primetime viewing to TNA on Thursday nights. A year ago, a lot of people may not have thought this was possible but by getting Hulk Hogan on board, I think that TNA showed Spike TV that they were ready to rumble and the progression of the show has been evident for all to see.

Any promotion will do anything if it shows just the least potential to spike ratings. I will not discredit that Hogan has spiked ratings, at least a little bit. So of course Spike crawls on their knees towards Hogan to beg for him to accept the offer they gave to his suggestion.

However that does not explain how Hogan's acquisition helped TNA. Because with a good idea, or anything that can draw in ratings, Spike would've given Dixie and TNA whatever they wanted, as long as it draws ratings.

For example, TNA have said that places out-with the US are the key battle grounds in their war with the WWE and in those places, the progression has been swift and unwavering. In the UK, TNA have almost trebled their ratings figures since Hulk Hogan took over and the figures speak for themselves. Good luck debating that, Ferb.

And why exactly is it that the outer world outsides of the United States will help TNA in any manner? Let's not forget where they're stationed, in the United States. The shows that are being broad casted in the United Kingdom is free television, good ratings, because it's free. Anybody will take something that's free, ever heard of the saying "The best food, is free food"?

WWE is earning money for their broadcasts in the United Kingdom, and in that way are bringing home money to survive, to acquire money worth talent, as well as to stay afloat for the most of of time, because the money are rolling in. TNA's money are not, at least not with free television.

And because TNA shows are not pulling in any money for the television station either, what is there to stop the station from kicking them off the air? Surely they can't possibly replace it with something that draws bigger ratings? Oh yes, they can.

So, tell me Ferbs, what in this paragraph was not true of TNA before Bischoff and Hogan too over?

For every poster on this board who attacks TNA, I will find you a poster who is over the moon with it. It is different strokes for different folks, mate. TNA were terrible before Hogan arrived. Basically, they were a glorified Indy promotion and nothing they had set them out from the rest of the competition. With Hogan on board, it showed both the fans and the WWE that TNA were seriously going to come after them and that is what they have done.

It really depends who you ask Dave. You could ask me for example, from a non biased perspective I gladly admit that I enjoyed the product they were putting on in November - October 2009 when we were seeing Matt Morgan feuding with Angle, and A.J getting the world title finally.

TNA is not gonna come after WWE, fans wants to watch a good product with good talent, not a product that contains 50% of the formula.

TNA was doing just fine!? Oh well, wrap up the debate because TNA were doing “fine”.

Look at my figures from before and if you want to check these figures, I have a source for you.

http://pwnewsnow.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1262827056&archive=&start_from=&ucat=6

Now, this source also states that the very hotly contested area of men between the age of 18-49 went up 338% during the Impact in which Hulk Hogan arrived. These are facts and you can prove anything with them.

That's nice Dave, however did you also check up on the ratings afterwards? Did you check up on the fact that during the time on Monday nights, TNA drew the lowest rating in 5 years?

You wanna do tables and figures? Well here you go my friend.

http://www.wrestling-radio.com/feed_news-15120-TNA_iMPACT!_Rating_for_329__Lowest_in_Five_Years.php

http://www.wrestling-radio.com/x/rawvsimpactratings2010.php

Yeah, that's not really working very well is it now?

Dude, this debate has nothing to do with the WWE. Indirectly, I suppose you could say that they are connected but not for this topic. The topic at hand is whether Hogan has made TNA a better company since his arrival and the WWE has nothing to do with how TNA is run. Yes, it was trying to “compete” with the WWE but I doubt it was even serious. I think that TNA just wanted to let fans know that they were around and serious about their growth. I think they tried to steal some recognition from the WWE and it has worked slightly. The ratings are up from when Hogan took over and the progression of the company remains swift.

You're wrong with that Dave, I shall not try to revolve this too much around it. But you are wrong. The fact that one of the first things that came out of Hogan's bearded mouth was "We'll move to Monday nights, we'll compete with RAW" like Hogan has always been so damn high on.

And what happened? Let's scroll back shall we?

You wanna do tables and figures? Well here you go my friend.

http://www.wrestling-radio.com/feed_news-15120-TNA_iMPACT!_Rating_for_329__Lowest_in_Five_Years.php

http://www.wrestling-radio.com/x/rawvsimpactratings2010.php

Yeah, that's not really working very well is it now?

The progressing is swift, but in what direction Dave? In what direction? They're not pulling any huge ratings compared to what they were pulling in late 2009, without Hogan. They only had a better product back then.

Absolutely incorrect.

I see you are basing your arguments around the ratings criteria. Little do you know that your argument is completely fabricated. Let me take you back to January 2009, the first edition of Impact was shown and received a rating of 0.95 and on the January 4th edition of Impact (against WWE Raw no less) Impact pulled in a 1.45… This was mainly due to Hogan.

However is this not what it is all about? Hogan's arrival was purely a stint to raise the ratings, and to make the world take notice. What other reason is there to hire someone? You don't hire someone just for the sake of hiring them, because they can be used in a minor storyline we all know nobody cares about.

Hogan has done exactly this, he has made the world a little noted, as well as raised the ratings a little bit. Congratulations to that, but I'm not impressed, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I hope you can prove this?

It depends on how you look as a person being the common fan Dave. I would very well say that I'm a common fan, I don't like what TNA is doing right now, they are doing very few things that I care about, primarily the Beautiful People, which was a thing that was around before Hogan, and we all know why we bother paying attention to that.

And in that way, a lot of people on this board are merely common fans, and let's have a look at the primary review ratings that someone gives iMPACT, or has given them the past few weeks.

Note: I know very well I will be leaving out a vast part of the whole reviews some did, because the whole thing would get way too big, I will redirect to the reviews however.

KB reviewed last weeks episode:

Overall Rating:D+. This just didn’t do it for me.

Doc on last week:

Credit where credit was due, there were some good parts to the show. As mentioned before, the MCMG/Guns match was excellent, and I really enjoyed the Beautiful People (especially Lacey von Erich because as I've made clear in other threads I just really like her). But other than that, the show was shit.

D

And sure that was just last week. Let's look back to some other shows.

26th February Kenny Powers wrote the following overall review.

Overall it wasn't horrible but a pretty silly Impact. I think Impact will become better though leading up to March 8th. I hope so at least because last night show will be lucky to beat NXT in the ratings. Not to mention the strong build up Raw has going into WrestleMania. It will be an interesting next few weeks.

31st March Lariat wrote this little pearl.

TNA needs to rethink its strategy and do it soon. I'll list those in the appropriate thread, but overall, TNA is in some trouble. Some will say it's too soon to tell, but when the ratings are nearing WWE SUPERSTARS level... you have problems. REAL problems.

Now I know very well, there's a lot of other people writing in there, some say it's good, (TNA defenders for the most of it) and some say it was awful (WWE fans for the most of it or TNA haters) but there are definitely some unbiased people in between, some that just watch. And I would like to believe some of these people are at least slightly unbiased.

Also, I would include more examples, but this post could run out of space soon, I think.

 

[Dave]

Yet his arrival did very little to the ratings on iMPACT. Sure they have raised, but for the talent that Hulk Hogan is, he's not exactly pulling the ratings one could expect. I debated this with Tenta in the pre-season, and I still believe Hogan's presence should be more than enough to raise ratings more than they have.

You clearly have no respect for how hard it is swimming against the tide, Ferbian. Let me make this clear to you, TNA are the second promotion in the Unites States. They are up against a massive powerhouse of a company every week and you are expecting Hulk Hogan to change any of that? Hulk Hogan is an absolute icon but he is not the reincarnation of Christ. The development of TNA is an ongoing process and won’t be completed overnight, with Hogan on board or not. The fact that he is though just tells me that he wants to be a part of that growth.

One man really doesn’t create a show like it used to. Back in the 90’s, Austin raised hell and Raw was all about his struggle with various people. However, wrestling really isn’t like that any more and the breakout stars like John Cena and Randy Orton play a different role than Hogan did. He is changing things slowly and they will eventually come good.

Depends in what manner you look at it. You could sign the top scorer of a league, and he absolutely blows his chances. There has been numerous signs of acquisitions to a promotion, or any other club in any other sport. It doesn't succeed all the times, and Hogan is a good example of this. The ratings may have raised a fair bit, but the product as a whole has been flushed.

How has it possibly been flushed?

The IWC were talking about TNA being some real competition for the WWE and although that has never really materialised in any great degree (just yet), they are still busting their ass to show people what they can do. TNA are not resting on their laurels and just expecting people to watch their product, much like the WWE are doing.

Rather, they are trying to do a lot of different things that are changing the face of their company and dragging the business into the new generation of wrestling. The product has been as good as it has ever been and there is definitely more stability about it. Russo booking is kept to a minimum at the moment and things actually make a little bit of sense. The same could not be said before Hogan arrived.

Now I know this is not a WWE vs TNA debate, however I feel this is a worthwhile point to bring up - Bret Hart, nowhere near the draw or anything that Hogan was, and he still managed to keep the ratings and everything flowing on RAW against a debuting Hulk Hogan on TNA. One of the worst draws of the business (arguable, he sure wasn't a big draw at least) managed to keep a shows ratings up high, against the biggest draw in the history of the business.

How exactly does that spell out for the arrival of Hulk Hogan? How does that marked them as mainstream in any way if their "biggest acquisition" in history, could in fact not fulfill the purpose that he ranted on and on about that he wanted to? To compete with RAW, and become noteworthy. This is something I will get back to later on.

What? That makes no sense, Ferbian. Are you seriously implying that Bret Hart is the reason that the WWE ratings have been as high of late? How about the Nexus? Or the illusive John Cena heel turn? Or the fact that The Rock could be back on our screens sooner rather than later? For me and any other self-respecting WWE fan, those factors are way more important than seeing Bret Hart beat the shit out of Vince McMahon at WrestleMania.

No! Bret Hart is not responsible for anything these days. I have never heard someone say that they were tuning into Raw just to see Bret Hart since he first debuted and I think you will find more people asking for him to be taken off TV than ever before.

Also, are you slamming Hogan for trying to hype up his return and the attack of WWE Raw? He was coming to TNA to take on some new challenges and the big fish in the small pond is the only way that he could get people to watch TNA that night. If he said that he would be turning up and just getting on with business whilst Bret Hart debuted on WWE, would you have watched TNA that night? Of course you wouldn’t. Hogan had to go after WWE to get people interested in how it developed and that is exactly what happened. TNA pulled in some monster ratings for that night and brought in some new fans.

All in all, mission successful.

Arguable, you can't necessarily say that Hogan, and Hogan only brought TNA to a point where they got the attention of the common fan. And you certainly cannot say that Hogan is indeed the big name that has done it most successfully. How about Kurt Angle? How about any of the other promised debuts on iMPACT, who could in fact have been the very people that had the TNA vs WWE buzzing, and not Hogan?

Yes! I actually can.

I urge, no I beg you to go and ask 50 people on these boards to give you the biggest name in TNA and I will guarantee you that a majority of them will say it is Hulk Hogan.

TNA is very unlike the WWE in regards to it’s talent pool. The WWE tends to create stars and then use them well. However, this doesn’t come as easily for TNA. Their stars take years to develop and the only one I can think of is AJ Styles, who is only now becoming more recognised in the mind of the casual wrestling fan.

Ask the same question of the WWE and you will get a more varied response. The WWE creates stars and their talent pool is utterly extraordinary. Hogan is, without the marquee signing for TNA and they have put a lot of stock into him thus far. The WWE don’t need to do that as they have many different superstars that they can pin their hopes on.

Yet how did it go for iMPACT afterwards Dave? Can you tell me that? Did it not in fact slowly fall downwards once again? Did they in fact not reach a new low in quite a long time a few weeks before they crawled back to Thursdays? Where was the drawing abilities of Hulk Hogan there? Where was the big impact that Hogan was gonna implement on TNA?

Again, you are taking on the longest running episodic TV show in American TV history and you are saying that it is Hogan’s fault that they got crushed?

The fact of the matter is that the run on Monday nights was little more than a signal of intent from TNA. I fully expect them to have known that they were going to get creamed every week but they were brave enough to take the fight to the WWE and test the waters. Believe me, TNA will have learned more from that experience than they have lost.

The reason, I believe, the ratings fell on Impact was because of how unstable the product was immediately after Hogan took over. We had dozens upon dozens of new superstars coming in and they actually had nothing to do. The show became confusing and boring and they got crushed against the well-oiled machine of the WWE. However, I will say that they have worked to amend that and now I think TNA have both learned a lot from their experience and are now a lot more whole as a company.

Hogan convinced Dixie, and TNA as a whole that it was a worthwhile move to Monday Nights, could you imagine what they could've possibly drawn during Thursday if Hogan had debuted? Or in the whole period that they were on Monday nights? But they weren't, and it was obviously a bad decision, made by none other than Hogan and co.

Care to prove that?

Any promotion will do anything if it shows just the least potential to spike ratings. I will not discredit that Hogan has spiked ratings, at least a little bit. So of course Spike crawls on their knees towards Hogan to beg for him to accept the offer they gave to his suggestion.

However that does not explain how Hogan's acquisition helped TNA. Because with a good idea, or anything that can draw in ratings, Spike would've given Dixie and TNA whatever they wanted, as long as it draws ratings.

I am not trying to be rude here but I really don’t know what you are getting at here.

I will take a stab at it.

You are saying that Spike gave TNA the go ahead to sign up Hogan, so that business would improve and the show would pull in more ratings? I think that is correct.

Now, that makes absolutely no fucking sense. Have you ever heard the saying ”you need to speculate to accumulate”? It means that by taking gambles and some risks, you may have more of a chance of making more money and that is exactly what TNA and Spike did. They put a lot of stick into Hogan taking over and it has worked. The ratings went up and TNA looks like a more worthwhile promotion. You don’t have titles that belong to other promotions flaunted on TNA and the addition of Hogan has brought about some much needed legitimacy to the promotion.

TNA took a risk on what Hogan would bring to their company and it is paying off now. They are beginning to grow and attract more big-name superstars that can help them evolve as a promotion.

And why exactly is it that the outer world outsides of the United States will help TNA in any manner? Let's not forget where they're stationed, in the United States. The shows that are being broad casted in the United Kingdom is free television, good ratings, because it's free. Anybody will take something that's free, ever heard of the saying "The best food, is free food"?

WWE is earning money for their broadcasts in the United Kingdom, and in that way are bringing home money to survive, to acquire money worth talent, as well as to stay afloat for the most of of time, because the money are rolling in. TNA's money are not, at least not with free television.

And because TNA shows are not pulling in any money for the television station either, what is there to stop the station from kicking them off the air? Surely they can't possibly replace it with something that draws bigger ratings? Oh yes, they can.

This may have been the most ******ed thing I have ever heard on these boards, seriously!

Mainly because you are absolutely wrong. You are actually trying to tell me that TNA is broadcast for free in the UK? Well, guess what Ferbian? I live in the United Kingdom and I can assure you that we do not get Bravo, Extreme Sports and Virgin1 are simply not free-to-air channels.

In fact, only Virgin 1 can be seen on Freeview services, which means that a digibox must be purchased to view. Extreme Sports and Bravo are cable channels and come along with your satellite provider’s fee. If you think that TNA re not getting a slice of money for the 15 hours of programming that they broadcast in the UK alone, then you are sorely mistaken.

I don’t like the fact that you are insinuating that we will only watch TNA because it is free. WWE is not free but, given the choice, I would rather watch that. No! The reason that so many people watch TNA in the UK is because it is good value for money. The WWE comes with Sky Sports who will charge you huge amounts to keep it’s contracts with the WWE and fans simply cannot afford it any more, especially when they have an alternative like TNA for a fraction of the cost. That, Ferbian, is just brilliantly good business on the part of TNA.

The WWE have the market cornered within the US and TNA are going to have to look outwards to find some room that they can compete with the WWE in. The UK and other niche markets are perfect examples of this and it allows TNA to be competitive and make some money.

Taking TNA off thw air is just ludicrous. TNA is not broadcast on hugely popular channels over here but I am willing to suspect that they are one of the best performers on their respective channels. Otherwise, there would literally be no need for these channels to continue to broadcast them and fight over broadcasting rights. Make no mistake, TNA is making good money from the fans in the UK and it is also massive exposure for the company that the WWE have taken away from themselves by giving the rights to a premium-rate TV service.

That's nice Dave, however did you also check up on the ratings afterwards? Did you check up on the fact that during the time on Monday nights, TNA drew the lowest rating in 5 years?

You wanna do tables and figures? Well here you go my friend.

http://www.wrestling-radio.com/feed_news-15120-TNA_iMPACT!_Rating_for_329__Lowest_in_Five_Years.php

http://www.wrestling-radio.com/x/rawvsimpactratings2010.php

Yeah, that's not really working very well is it now?

What surprises me is that you expected any different from TNA. They went after a huge company like the WWE and were helplessly beaten. They don’t have the talent pool or the overall product and depth that the WWE have. They rely very heavily on the same people time and time again and are nothing on the WWE. I will gladly accept that. In fact, you would probably say the same thing too.

Yes, I will accept those fact. I will accept that TNA ratings feel during their time on Monday nights going against the most successful WWE program that has been running for decades.

However, what I am failing to grasp is how this ties into the debate at all. This debate is all about Hogan and the fact that TNA do not have the ability to compete with the WWE yet has very little to do with him. He has tried to get it to that level but it is going to take more than one huge signing to get them there.

You're wrong with that Dave, I shall not try to revolve this too much around it. But you are wrong. The fact that one of the first things that came out of Hogan's bearded mouth was "We'll move to Monday nights, we'll compete with RAW" like Hogan has always been so damn high on.

And what happened? Let's scroll back shall we?

John Cena also said that he was going to take out the Nexus one by one and the next week he was getting his ass handed to him again. The fact of the matter is that Hogan was telling the fans, much like John Cena was, what they wanted to hear. He was trying to generate interest in the product and it that has worked. I am, as I think you are, more aware of TNA as a presence now and feel that they are at least some sort of competition for the WWE now.

The progressing is swift, but in what direction Dave? In what direction? They're not pulling any huge ratings compared to what they were pulling in late 2009, without Hogan. They only had a better product back then.

Yes but the company is way more stable now and the progression of the company is becoming more accelerated with every passing month. The company takes up 4 hours of primetime TV on Spike, which also has some great shows to air. That should show you some of the confidence that Spike TV has in the product.

They have some great marquee names in their company and TNA is becoming more widely recognised with Hogan as an ambassador for the business. Fans from other countries can look at Hulk Hogan and know that he is with TNA and that cannot be understated. They are moving in the right direction and building the company from the ground up with great foundations of strength coming from their ever-growing fanbase from all over the world.

However is this not what it is all about? Hogan's arrival was purely a stint to raise the ratings, and to make the world take notice. What other reason is there to hire someone? You don't hire someone just for the sake of hiring them, because they can be used in a minor storyline we all know nobody cares about.

See: Bret Hart.

Hogan has done exactly this, he has made the world a little noted, as well as raised the ratings a little bit. Congratulations to that, but I'm not impressed, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Ratings are everything, Ferbian. Absolutely everything!

It depends on how you look as a person being the common fan Dave. I would very well say that I'm a common fan, I don't like what TNA is doing right now, they are doing very few things that I care about, primarily the Beautiful People, which was a thing that was around before Hogan, and we all know why we bother paying attention to that.

And in that way, a lot of people on this board are merely common fans, and let's have a look at the primary review ratings that someone gives iMPACT, or has given them the past few weeks.

Note: I know very well I will be leaving out a vast part of the whole reviews some did, because the whole thing would get way too big, I will redirect to the reviews however.

Now I know very well, there's a lot of other people writing in there, some say it's good, (TNA defenders for the most of it) and some say it was awful (WWE fans for the most of it or TNA haters) but there are definitely some unbiased people in between, some that just watch. And I would like to believe some of these people are at least slightly unbiased.

Also, I would include more examples, but this post could run out of space soon, I think.

I removed some of the quotes for space.

Anyway, I could call into question how impartial some of these guys were/are at the time of writing them. We all know that KB has never been the biggest TNA fan and whilst we wouldn’t write something he didn’t think was true, he may be exaggerating somewhat. Doc is a dyed-in-the-wool WWE fan and probably hates everything about TNA.

However, what I will say is that you are cherry-picking the comments that show TNA in a negative light. I could do the exact same thing and pass it off as legitimate arguments. However, I just think that is pretty cheap and for every argument that either of us pick, the other could easily find a contradictory argument by another poster who would beg to differ.

In all honesty, people are fickle and really only type things that they want to complain about. Going through a thread on an internet board to take some people’s opinions to pass them off as the general consensus is pretty incorrect and doesn’t fool me.

 

[Ferbian]

Me and Dave discussed this debate over MSN last night, and we agreed to settle with a final closing argument for both of us. So that we wouldn't have to go back and forth on this subject, considering we both haven't been too much online this week.

I wish Dave good luck with the scoring, and the rest of the tournament.

--------------------

Hogan's love for Monday Nights​

Like I've mentioned before, TNA moving to Monday Nights was obviously Hogan's idea in the first place. The man just loves that night, and he loves competing with Vince McMahon. He did it in WCW, and he did it in TNA. Both didn't go very well nearing the end. Hogan obviously brought quite a hit to TNA in the period of time they were on Monday nights, they couldn't compete, not even with the talents they managed to fill their ranks with. How does that spell out for TNA, much less the acquisition of Hulk Hogan? Not very well.

Hogan might be full of idea's, and all in all it wasn't quite a bad idea to move to Monday Nights, it got TNA noticed in some way. But it wasn't in the positive way, they showed TNA's obvious weakness against the big guys. And that obviously shows that Hogan's ideas, aren't necessarily good ideas.

Hogan got rid of what made TNA special​

The Six sided ring. I know, little late to bring in this little pearl. However it's true, Hogan and Bischoff decided the ring needed to become a 4 sided ring. To let the new talent adapt, or to just make them seem like a regular promotion? I do not know which, however it wasn't necessarily a smart move.

Sure the ring doesn't matter in the end, but it made TNA something special. They actually had something different to give to the fans, not a different product because we've seen that before. But a different in-ring work, the talents might have been the same like Kurt Angle, he could work both rings, but the ring made for special things in TNA.

Special things still happen, however, it's just another promotion now. It's nothing special in that way anymore.

The product​

It's worse. My opponent has tried to convince you otherwise. However this is all true, the product was at least a bit exciting before TNA acquired Hogan. Ever since it has gone down hill for me at least. And I'm not alone, I presented some people that has rated shows on a regular basic. KB is a great guy to go to if you want a great review, and he has given TNA some awful ratings at times. A good handful of them in 2010.

The Champions? What the hell?​

This might be considered somewhat off-topic. But it's really not, the acquisition of Hulk Hogan brought in a lot of talent, namely one guy that brings the most attention obviously. RVD, he's their world champion, and the one guy expected to draw and pull the company through obviously. But he's not, he was supposed to be a big acquisition, but he's not. There's a lot of better choices for TNA champion, but thanks to Hogan, and following acquisitions, we're stuck with this guy.

A lot of the older, Hogan related talents that has been acquired by TNA since his arrival, has been involved in some kind of feud, or some kind of title shot (The Band). And what good is it doing for TNA? Not much if you ask me. They talked on and on about how TNA wanted to push the young guys, well? Where are they?

And this brings me on to my next point.

Hogan's extra talent has done little for TNA​

EV2.0? Sure they got the biggest ratings, or at least Tommy Dreamer did in the past few weeks, but has it really been anything worthwhile? Have anybody really cared about the majority of the new talent that was brought in by Hogan (Because I don't see half of these talents being in TNA had it not been for Hogan's acquisition). Have they done anything to better the product, to better the ratings? (in a noteworthy way?) Absolutely not!

As I noted in the opening statement, all it has done, is to raise the budget for Dixie Carter.

 

[Dave]

Thanks for a great debate, Ferb! Good luck to you in the future too.

------------------------------

Ladies and gentlemen judges, I hope that I have convinced you that Hogan coming to TNA has been a positive acquisition for the company. Over the last 8 months or so since Hulk Hogan debuted in TNA, the company and product have gone from strength to strength whilst the issues that plagued the company before have seemingly vanished.

Stability in the product!

Now, anyone who knows me, even briefly, will know that I hate TNA to it’s very core but even I, the most hardened WWE fan will tell you that TNA has been more stable since Hulk Hogan arrived. The days of Championships that didn’t belong to the promotion being used are long since gone and the company have gone about making their promotion a very legitimate wrestling company. They have brought on some massive names in the wrestling market and from top to bottom, it looks so much more like a stable company that has all of the foundations in place to continue giving us a great product and evolve in the future.

Expansion and Success!

TNA has become quite a powerhouse in the wrestling markets now, love them or hate them. In the UK, they have become the best alternative to the WWE and have gained a lot of ground on the WWE by expanding tremendously over the last 8 months. Although it’s expansion is still in it’s infancy, you can see that by recruiting Hulk Hogan, TNA are serious about their growth. They have secured 4 hours of quality TV time in the US on Spike and have 15 hours of aired showings in the UK (which have been earmarked as a key battle ground for TNA).

They have become more widely known around the world after piggy-backing (quite rightly) off of the name of the icon that is Hulk Hogan.

You know that in the future, TNA are going to continue to grow. They will soon move out of the Impact Zone and into arenas around the country. They have already started touring the world and those have been quite successful over here. They had multiple dates around the UK when they toured and discussion about TNA was fuelled.

There is no such thing as bad exposure!

And exposure is what TNA have accomplished over the last 8 months and it continues to grow to this day. It all ties into the last point too. They are making more shows that are made for TV and the network is lapping it up. They have taken the name of Hulk Hogan and started to build a legitimate business around him. The ratings have went up and had it not been for the ill-fated run on Monday nights, we might have seen a higher average rating for TNA this year.

However, it again comes back to exposure. TNA stole a couple of fans from the WWE, of that I am sure. They brought in some big names and that has seemingly paid off for them. At the end of the day, people are looking at TNA like a brother to the WWE now and not a poor cousin that gets nothing. It is more legitimate and seems to be working on a more even level to the WWE now. I have to believe that this will continue and it all came around when Hogan was put in charge.

The man knows the business and when TNA continues to grow and we look back on what moment defined TNA, we will look back at January 4th and Hulk Hogan’s debut.

Mark my words!​

 

[Phoenix]

Clarity of debate: Dave
Dave's argument felt more clearer and kept on course. Ferbian was discussing about WWE in a different context to what was needed when it's about TNA.

Punctuality: Ferbian
While understandably, Dave had a busy schedule, have to give it to Ferbian.

Informative: Dave
While both men brought a fair amount of info, Dave was able to add a bit more and correct Ferbian on some matters with his info.

Persuasion: Draw
This debate felt like it lacked something for me. Despite both men going at it and Dave feeling like a stronger debater, I didn't feel convinced by either that TNA was better with or without Hogan. It's nothing against Dave or Ferbian, but there was lack of a killer conviction to give me that final sway.

Final Score
Dave: 3
Ferbian: 2

 

[BooCocky]

Clarity- Dave stayed on topic while Ferbian kind of went off course.
Point: Dave

Punctuality- Dave was a little late. Ferbian wasn't. Ferbian receives the point.
Point: Ferbian

Informative- Ferbian gave a lot of information. But it seemed to be wrong. Dave gave some info. And it was right. So he gets the point.
Point: Dave

Persuasion- 've been following TNA since Hogan. I didn't really see an increase in the ratings. But Dave showed otherwise. So I reward him with the deuce.
Points: Dave

Dave-4
Ferbian-1

 

[CH David]

Clarity: Dave stayed on topic more, and had a nice thoughtout open and close. Still a work in progress for Ferbs, but he is getting a little better. One thing Dave wasn't clear about was part of his end. Won't get him here, but it will get him.

Point: Dave

Punctuality: What Phoenix and Becker said.

Point: Ferbian

Informative: Ferbs was missing his targets a little bit with his information. Dave was usually spot on. Although, I must say that Dave's "Stability" portion of his close is bugging me quite a bit. The belts haven't been NWA for quite some time, and they had a great direction from the latter half of 2009 up 'til Hogan's debut. Neither were a result of Hogan. I have to split this,

Point: Split

Persuasion: I admit, with this debate, and I'm sure others will come along down the road where I am biased before the debate, I was under the impression that Hogan unintentionally fucked TNA. However, Dave made some great points. Ferbs tried to combat them, but Dave swayed me from Hogan was horrible to Hogan has really helped. Not even just on the fence but through the fence to his side.

Point: Dave

CH David scores this Dave 3.5, Ferbian 1.5

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Clarity of debate: Ferbian
Dave laid out things nicely, but I don't think there's anyone more clearer in this thing than Ferbian. He may go off on tangents, but his posts are extremely clear-cut and understandable.

Punctuality: Ferbian
Yeah, what everyone else said.

Informative: Dave
Listen to what Phoenix wrote, Ferbian. Always, ALWAYS check your facts.

Persuasion: Dave
This would have been a draw, Ferbian, but your lack of aggression cost you. You've obviously got the brains to organize a coherent argument, so don't think of being aggressive as something that only masks your inability to debate.

Final Score
Dave: 3
Ferbian: 2

 

[Phoenix]

After a complete judge's tally, Dave is the victor on 13.5 points to Ferbian's 6.5.

Congratulations and great debating from the both of you!