IMPACT Wrestling LD for 01.03.13 is LIVE and Features the Return of Sting!

[Con T.]

And look at the way KB handled it as opposed to Haiku. Haiku looks for any reason he can find to call out JGKY's fanboy tendencies.

I'm not looking for any reason. If that were the case, I'd come into every TNA thread calling Joe an idiot. It's when he started defending this abortion of an angle that annoys me, more than anything

God forbid a mystery angle lasts over a month. Wrestling fans are simply impatient with very short attention spans. Some of the greatest television shows were built around mysteries that lasted months and months, and those with any form of intelligence stayed enthralled and intrigued with it.

Right... Hulk Hogan wasn't exposed as the Third Man, like, two months after Hall and Nash debuted. Even the Higher Power was revealed in like three months.

Times are changing. And part of being a good program means having your pulse on the audience, and knowing what the audience wants.The wrestling audience is changing, and I don't see what's so bad about establishing some sort of purpose

Not saying people should feel that way about Aces and Eights. Hell even I don't care at this point, but to say all mystery wrestling angles have no point of lasting longer than a month is ******ed. It was this impatient mind-set that led to the premature revealing of the leader of the Greater Power from The Ministry and look at how much of a disappointment that's looked at as today.

Again, Hogan was revealed in two months... Does that make fans impatient?

Like I said to Nate, I saw the way KB approached him and the way you did. The way you attack the guy rubs me the wrong way.

You know, this is still true;

JMT, for the record, I'm a million times worse on Stormtrooper... I don't see you running to his aide. Just saying

I've wrote about Joe once, and I've "attacked" him in this thread... That's really it, you know?

So what if someone isn't "reasonable" when it comes to their fandom of something? I'm not a reasonable person when it comes to the New Orleans Saints or Nick Diaz, most die-hard fans aren't.

So when I tell you that The New Orleans defense this year was dreadful, you say....?

 

[Con T.]

So now you know what the vast majority of what TNA's audience is interested in and can rank them

Better than you, clearly

 

[Joe's Gonna Kill You]

We both know nothing

 

[It's Damn Real!]

What a fuckin' miserable way to re-debut Sting.

 

[jmt225]

KB will call someone a moron just as quick as anyone will. He bowed out of the conversation like frankly, anyone with something to do would.

That's true, but I have a hard time believing he'd do it to someone like JGKY, who doesn't say a bad thing about anybody.

There have also been TV shows that have a mystery drag all the way to the end with a shit build and a horrible payoff. It's not impatience thinking that TNA would do the same, it's usually a safe bet.

Fuck, it isn't even a TNA thing. It's a Post 2000 Professional Wrestling thing.

All this is true, but his point was that no mystery angle in pro wrestling should last over a month, and I completely disagree with that notion.

Does that mean that anyone who calls you out on it is wrong? It's obnoxious to be that oblivious, there's nothing wrong with pointing that out.

Sure, but with people like JGKY you can discuss with him about this shit without hurling insults. Notice no one ever had a problem with him before Haiku's thread.

I'm not looking for any reason. If that were the case, I'd come into every TNA thread calling Joe an idiot. It's when he started defending this abortion of an angle that annoys me, more than anything

I've always thought the angle was stupid. A biker gang in 2012? Not my kind of thing at all, but if someone enjoys it, that doesn't make them a moron.

Right... Hulk Hogan wasn't exposed as the Third Man, like, two months after Hall and Nash debuted. Even the Higher Power was revealed in like three months.

Times are changing. And part of being a good program means having your pulse on the audience, and knowing what the audience wants.The wrestling audience is changing, and I don't see what's so bad about establishing some sort of purpose

People thought the same thing about the television audience before The Sopranos came along. I find nothing wrong with TNA doing things that go against the grain.

Again, Hogan was revealed in two months... Does that make fans impatient?

No, but if he would have been revealed 4 months later it wouldn't have made much of a difference.

I've wrote about Joe once, and I've "attacked" him in this thread... That's really it, you know?

Fair enough. But that thread really sticks out.

So when I tell you that The New Orleans defense this year was dreadful, you say....?

I'd say the Saints were robbed of their Head Coach and that the 2012 season is non-existent to me, lol.

 

[Con T.]

We both know nothing

Well, no, I can deduce from reading other people's opinions, including from a guy who is on your side, that they aren't feeling this angle. So if you think this angle is getting over, great, but you're wrong

 

[Joe's Gonna Kill You]

Well, no, I can deduce from reading other people's opinions, including from a guy who is on your side, that they aren't feeling this angle. So if you think this angle is getting over, great, but you're wrong

So you've seen a couple of the 1,300,000 people opinions of an angle. I'm not wrong because I don't claim to know what overall fan interest is in this angle or can claim to it rank and compare to other stories in TNA 1st 2nd 3rd 4th or 5th in terms of fan interest like you claimed so I'm actually not wrong at all you are

 

[Con T.]

That's true, but I have a hard time believing he'd do it to someone like JGKY, who doesn't say a bad thing about anybody.

Which is why you fail to see the point in this, which doesn't shock me whatsoever.

Now it may not be outright said, but what would you say is the implication of this post?

Sure, but with people like JGKY you can discuss with him about this shit without hurling insults. Notice no one ever had a problem with him before Haiku's thread.

Does anyone really have a problem with Joe?

I don't even have a problem with Joe, I just find him a little annoying, is all, and decided to write a little piece. the idea of a dumb wrestling fan is really an oxymoron... But there's certain things he and I don't agree on. All I did was write about it.

I've always thought the angle was stupid. A biker gang in 2012? Not my kind of thing at all, but if someone enjoys it, that doesn't make them a moron.

But when the vast majority of fans seem to agree that this angle seems to really be fizzling?

People thought the same thing about the television audience before The Sopranos came along. I find nothing wrong with TNA doing things that go against the grain.

I don't either, and they do plenty against the grain. But when an angle isn't clicking, there's no shame pulling the plug. They did it with Clair Lynch, and my God, were they better for it.

No, but if he would have been revealed 4 months later it wouldn't have made much of a difference.

Hmm.... Don't know if I'd agree. If you give Hall and Nash four months of even steven booking, like they're doing with Aces and Eights, I doubt the nWo is as over as it is when Hogan joins.

Fair enough. But that thread really sticks out.

Well yeah, I wouldn't make a thread to hope no one sees it.

I'd say the Saints were robbed of their Head Coach and that the 2012 season is non-existent to me, lol.

In all fairness, Goodell did screw you.

 

[Con T.]

So you've seen a couple of the 1,300,000 people opinions of an angle. I'm not wrong because I don't claim to know what overall fan interest is in this angle or can claim to it rank and compare to other stories in TNA 1st 2nd 3rd 4th or 5th in terms of fan interest like you claimed so I'm actually not wrong at all you are

And the fact that the year 2012 yielded the worst overall rating since TNA moved to Spike, with Aces and Eights at the helm of the company, surely means people aren't tuning out

 

[Joe's Gonna Kill You]

Surely there can't possibly be any other reasons why people have stopped watching. Surely this means also that the Vast Majority who are still watching hate the angle obviously this all true because you claim it to be

 

[Con T.]

Surely there can't possibly be any other reasons why people have stopped watched. Surely this means also that the Vast Majority who are still watching hate the angle obviously this is all true because you claim it to be

You do realize that people watch a show for more than one reason, right?

I watch Impact because I love Bad Influence, I'm liking this Aries-Roode thing they're doing, I'm even coming around to Jeff Hardy, I like the knockouts.

People will stick around through some stupid shit, to see things they like.

 

[Joe's Gonna Kill You]

Way to avoid the point you do realize people also stop for many reasons right?

 

[Con T.]

Way to avoid the point you do realize people also stop for many reasons right?

How am I avoiding the issue?

you argue that the vast majority of fans are staying and watching the show.

I argue, though you never acknowledge the fact that there are people tuning out, that people are likely watching through the show, because there are other elements.

You smugly make... I don't know, some point.

But fine, the majority of the audience is staying around. And a good portion of that majority, at least the portion we can read, seem to be down on the angle.

But fine, if you really want to believe this is a success, go for it. But I'm pretty sure that this only cements everything I've said about you before

 

[Joe's Gonna Kill You]

I've NEVER argued or said the vast majority are doing Anything YOU Stated this is the 6th most interesting thing to TNA fans and cited a couple of people as your proof and I'm not arguing if this a success or failure as an angle

 

[Gelgarin]

Well, no, I can deduce from reading other people's opinions, including from a guy who is on your side, that they aren't feeling this angle. So if you think this angle is getting over, great, but you're wrong

An early competitor for the most idiotic statement of the year. Wrestlezone, planet earth, those things are roughly equivalent.

 

[Con T.]

ooh, ooh, the second caretaker!

I don't need to say where else I go for wrestling, and what forums I frequent... I can guarantee you that if any forum is light on their criticism of Aces & 8's, it's wrestlezone.

 

[Gelgarin]

Oh... oh dear lord. Given the general wittiness of your poems, I find it challenging to believe that you can possibly be this stupid. To deal with the trivia first; KB and X already tried the whole TNA defender/mark/caretaker/fanboy line of offence, and it was just as ridiculous back then as it was now. If a central pillar of your argument revolves around calling someone else a fanboy then your argument is almost certainly shit.

Now; if you think that the IWC (or, dafter still, the tiny fraction of the IWC that you have firsthand experience of) in general gives an accurate reflection of wrestling's television audience then you are a buffoon.

 

[Con T.]

Oh... oh dear lord. Given the general wittiness of your poems, I find it challenging to believe that you can possibly be this stupid. To deal with the trivia first; KB and X already tried the whole TNA defender/mark/caretaker/fanboy line of offence, and it was just as ridiculous back then as it was now. If a central pillar of your argument revolves around calling someone else a fanboy then your argument is almost certainly shit.

Now; if you think that the IWC (or, dafter still, the tiny fraction of the IWC that you have firsthand experience of) in general gives an accurate reflection of wrestling's television audience then you are a buffoon.

Well, to be frank, I meant more the second caretaker to JGKY, but regardless, sure, if you want to be defensive about the term "fanboy", go ahead with that.

Very well then... The general indifference in the Impact Zone when Mike Knox is unmasked... We should make what of that? Or, as I pointed to earlier, the fact the more people are tuning out in 2012, than any other time TNA has run on Spike.

PWTorch has published a list of ratings averages both for yearly comparisons and month-to-month comparisons. 2012 was the worst year TNA has done for ratings since 2006. TNAsylum has a list of the viewership and ratings that TNA has done all year at THIS link.

Yearly Rating Averages

2007 - 1.05 rating
2008 - 1.06 rating
2009 - 1.15 rating (pre-Hogan)
2010 - 1.06 rating (includes switch to Monday nights & switch back to Thursdays)
2011 - 1.17 rating
2012 - 1.02 rating (1.07 first-half, 0.97 second-half)

Month-to-Month Ratings Averages
Jan. 2012: 1.15 rating
Feb. 2012: 1.11 rating
Mar. 2012: 1.04 rating
Apr. 2012: 1.01 rating
May 2012: 1.01 rating (includes first live show 5/31)
June 2012: 0.98 rating
July 2012: 0.96 rating
Aug. 2012: 1.04 rating (reversed six-month slide)
Sept. 2012: 0.98 rating
Oct. 2012: 0.92 rating (BFG month)
Nov. 2012: 0.96 rating
Dec. 2012: 0.97 rating

You will note, of course, that Aces and Eights started right around June

 

[Gelgarin]

Very nice; except it has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand. A ratings breakdown (which is comical statistics abuse incidentally) has nothing to do with what you said. Let's look again.

Well, no, I can deduce from reading other people's opinions, including from a guy who is on your side, that they aren't feeling this angle. So if you think this angle is getting over, great, but you're wrong

Seems pretty clear to me; you can deduce the success or failure of a given angle by reading the opinions of people on the internet. I consider that a moronic statement and challenge you to defend it.

So, can you deduce from reading other people's opinions whether an angle is a success or not?

 

[Con T.]

Sure; if enough people say an angle sucks, well, blimey, it must be pretty darn bad, innit?

 

[Gelgarin]

And how do you measure "enough" people.

Does a fraction of one percent, almost exclusively drawn from the same demographic (which isn't even the show's primary demographic), qualify as "enough".

If so, why?

 

[Con T.]

And how do you measure "enough" people.

Does a fraction of one percent, almost exclusively drawn from the same demographic (which isn't even the show's primary demographic), qualify as "enough".

If so, why?

Nielson boxes are essentially the same thing, using a small percentage of the population to chart where everyone else is going, and that controls billions of dollars.

If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

I get it, that the IWC is probably more critical of the Aces & 8's than the "common" fan (which is a lark, considering that for years, TNA has catered their program directly to the IWC), but frankly, I've heard enough fans either do the following;

A. State their dislike
B. Stop watching

That, in fact, I can decide this angle isn't working.

Oh, but enough of me, I hate talking about me. Tell me... Do you really think this angle is going anywhere?

 

[Gelgarin]

Oh, but enough of me, I hate talking about me. Tell me... Do you really think this angle is going anywhere?

I have no idea; I'm not watching the show at the moment. I really liked it for the few months I saw; based on the spoilers its stagnated a bit since BFG. Not that this is in any way relevant, my opinion on A&8s has no baring on what we are talking about.

Nielson boxes are essentially the same thing, using a small percentage of the population to chart where everyone else is going, and that controls billions of dollars.

If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

Except the Nielsen boxes are managed by a large team of professional statisticians drawing data from 25,000 sources which were carefully collated and categorized based on demographics.

Your data is drawn from a small collection of here-say and general impressions gathered through social interaction with people drawn almost exclusively from one demographic (which as I pointed out earlier, isn't even TNA's primary demo)

Surely you can see why these are not the same thing.

There is legitimate statistical data out there demonstrating that Nielsen data is sufficiently accurate. There is nothing out there beyond your own self confidence and need for validation in your opinions to support your "data". That's leaving aside the fact that you still haven't answered my very simple question; how many people is enough for you to conclude that a wrestler or angle is unsuccessful.

The reason I ask is because I remember the IWC being unbelievably vocal about how terrible John Cena was a few years back. Couple that with the WWE's ratings decline and your logic seems to flat out prove that Cena is a terrible professional wrestler. Do tell me if I've gone wrong somewhere.

 

[klunderbunker]

Now it may not be outright said, but what would you say is the implication of this post?

That JGKY is about as biased of a poster towards a single wrestling company in our happy community and there's little point in arguing points with him because at the end of the day, he simply will not criticize TNA no matter how coherently an argument is laid out, because his answer will be "I like it" or "Give it more time."

 

[klunderbunker]

Also, the argument that the ratings tell whether something is good or not doesn't hold up. WCW was horrible from a quality standpoint in 1997 while WWF had one of the best stories ever with the Border War. WWF had better characters, matches, logic and execution and never got close to Nitro's heels in that year.