Is ECW's 'Death' a Victory for TNA?

[Uncle Sam]

You'll have to forgive me if this post isn't fantastic. I have the flu and it's all I can do to not lie in bed all day. Anywho...

The part of the WWE that TNA was most commonly compared to - in my experience at least - was ECW. I'm guessing that's because they were the closest in ratings. Recently, ECW's ratings have fallen down the toilet and it's just been announced it's being replaced by NXT. Simultaneously, TNA's ratings have marginally grown and they've announced a move to Monday nights to compete with the WWE's A-show.

I'm not suggesting that this is anything more than a coincidence; just good timing. But still, TNA should count this as a win, right?

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Well, TNA hasn't really had anything to do with ECW's declining ratings. A lot of wrestling fans have been extremely critical of the new ECW and the shows ratings have been steadily declining for a long time now. Now, whether things are going to be differently with NXT, who knows. But, at any rate, the WWE is just putting another show in the place of ECW. I'm assuming that NXT will be a 1 hour show like ECW, so that still gives the WWE 6 hours of programming airing on television each week compared to TNA's 2.

Maybe if the WWE decided to give up on a third brand altogether I could see possibly see something. As I said, ECW's ratings have been declining for a long time while TNA's ratings have only grown marginally within the past month.

 

[Ty Burna]

I don't see how this would exactly be a victory for TNA. It's not like ECW is going off the air for good, its just getting repackaged with a new name. Likely it'll get around that same rating that it did before, which is just slightly below where TNA is at right now.

It would probably be a bigger issue if ECW and TNA went head to head every week and the ratings increased for TNA and decreased for ECW the way they have recently. That would be a victory for sure, but not in this situation.

 

[Mustang Sally]

It would probably be a bigger issue if ECW and TNA went head to head every week and the ratings increased for TNA and decreased for ECW the way they have recently.

Good point. I wouldn't be surprised to hear TNA (under Bischoff's influence) say that they knocked off ECW, but the writing was actually on the wall for ECW a long time ago. The show never was what it was originally intended to be.

The thing is; WWE has so much programming to account for each week, and by the time they get to their last-rated program, there's not all that much left that hasn't been done.

In fact, that's probably a better indicator for this thread..... TNA's ratings compare only with WWE's third-rated program.

Along this line, we should remember that it wasn't all that long ago that WWE produced one hour of original programming a week: Monday Night RAW from the Manhattan Center in New York. (I used to watch it from my baby crib).There were a couple of other WWE shows at the time, but they were only recaps and filler. I've maintained for a long time that there's just too much WWE out there.....a lot of territory that needs defending against the likes of TNA.

Maybe if they gave us less to watch, the ratings would be commensurately higher for what we do get.

Think about it.

 

[RKOChamp]

The changing of ECW is in no way a win for TNA. The two shows are not in competition with one another for viewers, being on two total different nights. ECW had been having ratings problems for quite some time now. ScFy and WWE were talking of redoing the show for months now. This is coincidental that it is happening right now.

But like Mustang said, it wouldnt surprise me at all to hear Hogan and/or Bischoff say that they are the reason that ECW began failing and is now having to be changed up. And also like was said above, if you are comparing yourself to WWE's C program, how do you expect to go head to head with the flagship of WWE? (right now anyways).

But again, this is no way a win for TNA

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Like the others, I can't see how this is necessarily a victory for TNA. It is possible that they played a part in this, but I don't think by much. It's not like they were running opposite each other or were even on the same night. However, one could argue since there is so much wrestling on nowadays, that some people who perhaps watched ECW on Tuesday nights, are now choosing to watch Impact on Thursday nights instead. But I still don't think TNA can claim victory here.

Who this is MORE SO a victory for is Paul Heyman's original ECW. Because despite all the additional money Vince had that he threw at this version of ECW it absolutely NEVER came anywhere close to touching the popularity of the original ECW. That company was started from the ground up and didn't have the bankroll that Vince did. So what they accomplished was far more impressive than what Vince did, who already had plenty of resources. Vince obviously had a budget of what he was willing to spend on the brand, and he simply couldn't get the return on his investment that he wanted.

The original ECW was also able to get their shows on PPV, while WWE never had their own WWECW in its current state ever on PPV, because it wouldn't be profitable ... and everyone knows it.

The bottom line is that fans embraced the original ECW and it started a cult-like phenomena amongst its fans. It can also be credited as the inspiration to Vince Russo for The Attitude Era in the WWE.

This version of WWECW basically accomplished nothing with its two different versions under the WWE umbrella ... that being:

1) First, the watered-down ECW that Vince tried (however this was still far more successful than the second version)

2) The developmental show that we see today.


Vince had every intention to make this a stand-alone brand, third brand alternative to Raw and Smackdown, complete with their own separate House Shows and PPV's, however he failed at executing this vision.

So if anything, as opposed to TNA, what this really is a victory for is the original ECW and Paul Heyman.

 

[Davi323]

As soon as they outlawed hardcore matches, ECW wasn't ECW. I don't even know if I would be gracious enough to call it a watered down version...This was more like the Glen Jacobs portrayal of Diesel, a complete sham, a pretender. Just because they called it ECW doesn't mean it was ever ECW. ECW died a long time ago. This was more like Tuesday Night Heat, or Shotgun Tuesday Night. But, as has been stated by others, how does this have anything to do with TNA? They aren't competing against each other. fakECW failing and TNA are unrelated.

 

[WHhasIDEAS]

I have to agree with Davi. I've been watching WWE ever since I was 4 and I have to say that WWE hasn't got much to show. We can pretty much predict the outcome of matches and stuff. WWE was never meant to be a PG show and TNA is making a smart move to exploit that. Attitude era was just epic. If only they could bring it back WWE would be awesome

 

[neildittmar]

I agree with Sidious that the rebranding of WWE's ECW is a win for Paul Heyman, but also RVD, the original ECW as a whole, and its fans. According to an interview with RVD, Vince was so certain that his ECW was what the fans wanted to see and the old ECW was just that... old. How wrong he was and ECW's rebranding is proof positive of that.

While I'd rank the WWECW failure along the lines of XFL proportions due to the money involved, unfortunately the win part of it remains a shallow one considering that "true" ECW programming is still nowhere to be found. In that respect, WWE's version of ECW still could've been something, not having the original to compare it to. It was WWE that dropped the ball on the program, not because another product killed it. That said, this isn't really a win for TNA more than it is a defeat for the ECW brand by WWE.

I'm convinced the PG rating is what effectively killed the show. ECW without the hardcore matches still could've worked if more mature storylines were explored, more chances were taken (both by the writers and the talent), fresh faces were featured and older stars got a second shot. Unfortunately, one out of the three wasn't good enough. The show was essentially ECW in name only. Changing it to something different is a smart move and should've happened a very long time ago.

 

[Tastycles]

Who this is MORE SO a victory for is Paul Heyman's original ECW. Because despite all the additional money Vince had that he threw at this version of ECW it absolutely NEVER came anywhere close to touching the popularity of the original ECW. That company was started from the ground up and didn't have the bankroll that Vince did. So what they accomplished was far more impressive than what Vince did, who already had plenty of resources. Vince obviously had a budget of what he was willing to spend on the brand, and he simply couldn't get the return on his investment that he wanted.

What the hell are you talking about? The original ECW may have had a cult following, but it's best ever television rating was 1.1 right in the middle of wrestling's most watched period. If you compare it to the contemporary Raw rating and extrapolate, then you have a modern day equivalent of about 0.7, which is a lot less than the current ECW ratings

The original ECW was also able to get their shows on PPV, while WWE never had their own WWECW in its current state ever on PPV, because it wouldn't be profitable ... and everyone knows it.

While this may be true, the only ECW PPV the modern WWE attempted was viewed as a complete and utter disaster, yet it still outdrew everything the original ECW ever put on TV. The reason Vince didn't put the modern day ECW on TV is because it would have been less profitable than a three brand show, but it still would have been more popular than anything Heyman's ECW put out.

That isn't to say that I preferred Vince's vision of ECW to Heyman's, I haven't seen enough ECW broadcasts in their entirety to judge, but there is absolutely no contest in the eyes of the wider audience. If this is a victory for the bankrupt Paul Heyman, then it is a pyrrhic one. If anything, this has just showed that that brand of wrestling will never have a mass audience appeal, no matter what its production value.

Onto the matter at hand, I don't think that TNA had anything to do with the demise of ECW, it was just the direction that the brand took that lost its audience. I'm not even sure ECW has really died, to be honest with you, it's just changed it's name. After all, will anything be significantly different from the last 2 years of ECW TV? I dobut it.

 

[donutman]

How does TNA win? WWE changing formats has nothing to do with TNA. I actually think its been a long time coming. WWECW was only ECW in name. It's for the better that they change it. Maybe this will make the smarks realize that something like the original ECW or the Attitude Era can never be recreated. It's time to let go. If anything, WWE wins because they showed how you book a 1 hour wrestling show (yes, i'm talking to TNA) and how you bring up new talent.

 

[Razor]

Well Sam, this would be a victory for TNA if TNA had anything to do with ECW being rebranded.

If TNA had gone head to head with the WWE during ECW and wiped the floor with them, thereby forcing the rebranding, then sure. Point to TNA.

However, TNA hasn't shown any effect directly on ECW's ratings. I think it's safe to say that the failure of ECW is on the shoulders of the WWE not really knowing what they wanted out of the show until something around 6 months before today, and Syfy for their abysmal showing of advertising the show.

Then again....would the failure of your enemy not be a victory for you?

 

[proofinlife]

How does TNA win? WWE changing formats has nothing to do with TNA. I actually think its been a long time coming. WWECW was only ECW in name. It's for the better that they change it. Maybe this will make the smarks realize that something like the original ECW or the Attitude Era can never be recreated. It's time to let go. If anything, WWE wins because they showed how you book a 1 hour wrestling show (yes, i'm talking to TNA) and how you bring up new talent.

This would be a great thread topic all on it's own. Over the last two years WWE has put more young/lesser known names out there on their bigger brands than TNA has been able to do in the last 5 years. The only "young guy" that has gotten over extremely fast in TNA is Pope, who came up with his gimmick, entrance, and everything he does in the ring on his own.

Meanwhile, TNA has been working for the last 5 years getting the same names over, and really haven't done a great job with it. Guys like Daniels and Joe should be permanent mainstays in the main event, but they constantly push these guys to the wayside in favor of the "flavor of the month".

I would say in this aspect ECW defeated TNA till the bitter end (and they weren't even trying to compete), so no, with this argument TNA did not garner any victory.

Then again....would the failure of your enemy not be a victory for you?

Personally, I would still say no. Look at it this way. I don't watch Hockey but this is my best example :

Edmonton Oilers and Calgary Flames have a long rivalry all season long. They both play well and make it to the Playoffs of the Stanley Cup. Oilers get put out in the semi or quarter finals and are left on the sidelines. Calgary makes it to the finals and loses.

This wouldn't be a victory for Edmonton as much as it would be a "Yaaay we didn't want them to win and they got beat out, woooo" kind of thing.

It's a bad analogy, but what I'm trying to say is it can't be a victory for TNA if they didn't have much to do with it, if anything indirectly.

 

[Samurai Executioner]

No.. (like everyone else) I dont think its a victory for TNA , as TNA had nothing to do with the change in name of a show!!!. ECW has been a development show as of late, so ECW was just the wrong name here... Vince finally got it that just a brand name wont help a show get higher ratings.

WWE probably just wants to sit back , hit the reset button... and think along different lines how to run NXT.

 

[The Doctor]

There is no way this can be considered a victory. If they were on at the same time on the same night and Impact consistently outdrew ECW, maybe, but these shows were totally different from each other. ECW was an hour, Impact was two. ECW came on at ten on a Tuesday while Impact was on at 9 on a Thursday. You can't compare the two, really, and there's no way this can be considered a victory especially since it seems they're just replacing the old show with a new show.

 

[GenMe]

Ecw's Death a TNA victory?Well i clearly dont think so,Because ECW was not a good ratings show.As of right now TNA is just in SD's level.So basicaly the end of ECW doesnt give them any victory,Because really they still need to compete with SD and RAW.

Heck we dont know maybe NXT will get better ratings then TNA.Because basically NXT will be an all new stars project,And we all know that we like to see new wrestlers on TV day by day,We dont like to see the same stale stars every day "cena"