Should TNA bring back the 6 sided ring permanently?
This is a second round, Loser's Bracket debate in the 2012 Wrestlezone Debater's League Tournament.
Rattlesnake won the coin toss and will be the home debater. He's earned the right to choose EITHER which side of the debate he wants to argue OR who provides the opening statement. He can also defer this choice to his opponent. (The home debater has 24 hours to make this decision otherwise it is automatically deferred to his opponent.)
After these choices are made, the first post of the debate must be posted within the first 24 hours otherwise it will affect the starter's Punctuality portion of the judging. Debaters have 24 hours to respond to their opponent's post and the faster the response, the better chance you have to score higher point totals.
There is no maximum amount of posts for debaters in this round. Debaters can create unlimited replies until the allotted time of the debate runs out.
This thread is for DEBATERS ONLY and will end on Friday at 2pm EST where judging will immediately begin. Judging must be finished no later than Sunday at 11am EST.
Anyone that posts in this thread besides the debaters, league admins, and judges will be infracted!
As some people may be knowing, TNA, like most other wrestling promotions on this planet, first started out by utilizing a four sided ring. TNA put out it's first show on June 19th, 2002 and from that day till the May of 2004, TNA utilized a four sided ring. By that point, TNA had a TV show in TNA explosion which featured matches from TNA Asylum and a month later they were able to launch TNA Impact! which has been their flagship show for years. All this was possible on the revenue they generated on shows which utilized the four sided ring.
From 2004 to 2010, TNA experimented with the six sided ring in a bid to appear different from all other organizations in the US. Then, TNA signed the greatest superstar in wrestling history in Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff and to cut a long story short, this is what happened at TNA Genesis 2010.
[YOUTUBE]D_M1zkXy8NA[/YOUTUBE]
Hulk Hogan re-introduced the four sided ring in TNA at Genesis 2010 and from then on it has been the ring that has been used regularly in TNA barring a few exceptions like the Destination X PPV of 2011. People initially did not accept the change but later, most of the protests died down. I, for one, have always been of the view that the six sided ring has always been a gimmick and that it should not be brought back on a regular basis ever again.
The reasons are as follows.
1. The six sided ring looks unprofessional because wrestling has always been defined by the four sided ring. Furthermore, it's only a gimmick and gimmicks are not used on a permanent basis.
The point I am trying to make must be clear from the images I just posted. A term that you associate with a wrestling ring is that of the squared circle. The term has it's origins in Greco Roman wrestling which was the forefather of pro wrestling.
Almost every known pro wrestling organization in this world uses a four sided ring and that has always been the case. The four sided ring has become synonymous with wrestling. Even AAA, a promotion that uses six sided rings does not use them on a regular basis. The six sided ring is only brought out by them during PPV's. For all other occasions, like television and house shows, they use the traditional wrestling ring.
What this does for TNA is that it makes them look like they belong to the bush leagues. You do not feel that you are watching a real pro wrestling promotion. It makes TNA look as if they are trying to WOW the audience with a gimmick rather than with substance which is a bush league approach if there ever was one. Style over substance looks to be what TNA are aiming for if they are trying to attract the audience with a 6-sided ring rather than with their stories.
Even the WWE uses gimmicks at times, like the HIAC match or the Elimination Chamber match. But they do not do so on a regular basis, they do so only sporadically at certain times of the year. Because they know that using that sort of gimmick everyday would lessen the value of that gimmick. Hell, that is what people claim that the HIAC PPV has done to the HIAC match. The six sided ring does not change the nature of a match as much as the Cell or the Elimination Chamber but if it has to be used, it needs to be used sporadically so that it looks and feels like a special attraction. The ring was meant as a special attraction but using it every night for six years made it lose it's speciality. A gimmick has no use if it is used on a permanent basis.
It certainly looks as if I am not the only one who thinks this way. When the greatest pro wrestler of all time, Hulk Hogan, likens the six sided ring to a playpen arena, you have got to take him seriously. That is exactly what Hulk said in the video I posted at the beginning.
AJ Styles, a noted supporter of the six sided ring also agrees to the notion that the six sided ring makes people take TNA less seriously.
But then I heard that maybe the reason for that change was so we could be taken more seriously as a company and I can understand that.
Now, let us move on to what Eric Bischoff has said regarding this issue.
Eric Bischoff: In my opinion it really didnt. It was a gimmick. The wrestlers didnt work any differently in the six sided ring than they did in a traditional ring. It also ate up too much of the screen and took the depth out of the venue. Thanks for the feedback though!
And finally, let us see what former wrestler Lance Storm had to say about the six sided ring.
I never liked the six sided ring and thought it just screamed “Silly Gimmick,” so I welcomed the return to a conventional ring. I found the matches much easier to watch and after the initial “oh hey it’s a real ring” I quickly didn’t notice the ring any more and could focus on the product.
Need I say more, judges? The six sided ring looks unprofessional and gimmicky and in the words of both Lance Storm and Eric Bischoff, makes it difficult to watch the matches. What good can be done by bringing the six sided ring back permanently?
2. There is no real demand for the six sided ring anymore.
Whoa whoa whoa! Now do not be shocked when I say this. I know that people think that TNA fans are extremely passionate about the six sided ring. After all, the "we want six sides!" chants at the Impact zone are proof, are they not? WRONG.
The fact is that those chants have not translated into figures. If the six sided ring was such a big part of TNA, then maybe the PPV buyrates should have declined big time. Also, the PPV buyrates of Destination X 2011 should have much larger than the PPV buyrate of the other PPV's as Destination X was held in a six sided ring.
Here are the PPV buyrates for TNA PPV's of 2011.
6/12 Slammiversary (TNA) Orlando, FL-8,500 7/10 Destination X (TNA) Orlando, FL-8,000
8/7 Hard Justice (TNA) Orlando, FL-7,500
11/13 Turning Point (TNA) Orlando, FL-9,000
12/11 Final Resolution (TNA) Orlando, FL-8,000
The PPV buyrates of all TNA PPV's of 2011 are not available but that is not even required here. Truth is, that people have accepted the four sided ring in TNA. The six sided ring at Destination X could not prevent it from garnering the second lowest number of buys on that list. PPV's held in four sided rings have garnered more buys than PPV's held in a six sided ring.
So, if the return of the six sided ring for one night cannot generate more buys than PPV's held in four sided rings then that shows that there is little demand for it. In such a scenario, I ask you judges, why should the six sided ring return on a permanent basis? If it cannot do much good by returning for one night as a special attraction, how much good will it do if it returns on a permanent basis?
3. The six sided ring does not really benefit the product
Seriously, I have heard some of the most outrageous arguements as to how the six sided ring benefits the product. People forget that it is just a ring after all. The only attraction it could have had was for the people that had never seen a six sided ring before and that attraction could have, at best, only lasted for a few days after which people would have only watched TNA if the product was good. Whether you put up a six sided ring or an eight sided ring, no one will watch your product until and unless you have good wrestlers and are putting out some good storylines. If you do that, the structure of the ring is pretty much ignored. Hence, a six sided ring really has no utility.
Some of the other outrageous arguements include the fact that it made the X-Division look better. Seriously? It is not as if the X-Division shows us some new form of wrestling. Cruiserweights and other high flyers have been having great matches in WCW, WWE, ECW, New Japan for a long time now, all in a four sided ring.
There is also the arguement that it made the cage match in TNA look better. From what I can remember, two cage matches have been rated as 5 star matches by Dave Meltzer and both took place inside a four sided WWE ring. Even Lockdown, the PPV which featured the six sided cage, there have been fantastic cage matches inside a four sided ring in the past two years between Jeff Jarrett and Kurt Angle in 2011 and Kurt Angle and Mr Anderson in 2010.
I would like to sum up this opening post by saying that there is no way in which TNA benefits from the six sided ring, there is no real demand for the six sided ring among the people who watch TNA and the ring looks unprofessional and gimmicky. For these reasons, the six sided ring should not be brought back permanently.
Back in 2004, TNA/Impact Wrestling tried something new. No, not wrestling, but the use of a Six-Sided ring. The squared circle became a hexagonal squared circle. It wasn't for the sake of showing off, but this ring had benefits. Multiple benefits. Having just two extra ring posts meant that there was so much more that could be done. It wasn't the first Wrestling promotion that had a six-sided ring, but it's probably the most memorable of them. Let's just take a look at it;
Not only was it better looking than your normal Four-Sided ring, but there were multiple ways in which the ring worked to allow for more interesting usage of the ring. Let's gets started on that.
The Six-Sided ring allowed for faster paced action.
Think about it for a second. With each ring post and set of turnbuckles being closer together, people could move between them quicker than from post to post in a four-sided ring. People could jump from different angles & moves could be landed a lot quicker.
[YOUTUBE]3Z-GJrRVZrg[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]DVOSFf1Udyg[/YOUTUBE]
Two matches here, one a simple tag & the other the "Feast or Fired" gimmick match from TNA's own brain. The tag match utilizes all of the different areas in the ring and the Feast or Fired hangs 4 Briefcases above 4 different ring posts, but with the extra turnbuckles, people can climb to reach a case, but have someone leap towards them and hit them possiibly with a dropkick, thanks to the extra turnbuckle's boost!
Did it help PPV Buys?
Below, in "Spoiler" tags are the average PPV buys for the years 05, 06, 07, 08 & 2011. The first four years all were TNA in the height of their popularity, with a SIX-SIDED ring. In 2011, when Hogan introduced four sides, you'll see a difference.
Final Resolution 2005 15-20,000
Against All Odds 2005 15-20,000
Destination X 2005 15-20,000
Lockdown 2005 25-30,000
Hard Justice 2005 15-20,000
Slammiversary 2005 15-20,000
No Surrender 2005 10-15,000
Sacrifice 2005 10-15,000
Unbreakable 2005 10-15,000
Bound For Glory 2005 30-35,000
Genesis 2005 15-20,000
Turning Point 2005 25-30,000
2005 Average 17-22,000
Final Resolution 2006 40-45,000
Against All Odds 2006 30-35,000
Destination X 2006 25-30,000
Lockdown 2006 40-45,000
Sacrifice 2006 20-25,000
Slammiversary 2006 30-35,000
Victory Road 2006 20-25,000
Hard Justice 2006 30-35,000
No Surrender 2006 25-30,000
Bound For Glory 2006 55-60,000
Genesis 2006 55-60,000
Turning Point 2006 30-35,000
2006 Average 33-38,000
Final Resolution 2007 30-35,000
Against All Odds 2007 20-25,000
Destination X 2007 25-30,000
Lockdown 2007 30-35,000
Sacrifice 2007 20-25,000
Slammiversary 2007 20-25,000
Victory Road 2007 15-20,000
Hard Justice 2007 20-25,000
No Surrender 2007 15-20,000
Bound For Glory 2007 35-40,000
Genesis 2007 20-25,000
Turning Point 2007 15-20,000
2007 Average 22-27,000
Final Resolution 2008 20-25,000
Against All Odds 2008 20-25,000
Destination X 2008 15-20,000
Lockdown 2008 50-55,000
Sacrifice 2008 20-25,000
Slammiversary 2008 25-30,000
Victory Road 2008 20-25,000
Hard Justice 2008 30-35,000
No Surrender 2008 15-20,000
Bound For Glory 2008 35-40,000
Turning Point 2008 30-35,000
Final Resolution-December 2006 15-20,000
2008 Average 24-29,000
Make the comparison for yourself. TNA, yes have been losing fans throughout the years, just look! Back through the years of Six-Sides, TNA were selling in the tens of thousands. Kurt Angle debuted in a six-sided ring & garnered nearly 60,000 buys. Notice though, back in the years of the hexagon, Destination X was always one of the highest bought PPV's of the year.
Maybe it didn't do much in 2011 where it was a "comeback" for one night only, but it sold more than Hard Justice & possibly even more than Final Resolution. You can't say it wasn't a great PPV either, with matches such as AJ Styles vs Christopher Daniels and Austin Aries vs Jack Evans vs Low Ki vs Zema Ion. It was even rated an 8 out of 10 by Slam! Sports. Also, 411 Mania called it the Probably the best and most consistent offering on PPV from TNA so far this year, and a potential candidate for PPV of the year for the company most likely by the time the end of the year rolls around. It may have been lacking in Main Event status stars, but the whole point was to showcase the X-Division.... and Abyss.
What was that Rattlesnake, it didn't make a difference? I think it did.
Oh wait, I forgot! It was different!
See, if you complained about the Six-Sided ring, or you weren't fussed about it disappearing for the usual four, then you're nothing more than a traditionalist, obviously. But many people gave it a try and loved it. Lots of people enjoyed the Hexagonal style of TNA's ring and didn't ever want to see it go, like me. It was more interesting, I got a kick from it and it was different to the WWE. See, that was one of the main reasons I liked it. It rivalled the other company that was more popular than it. The uniquity of six-sides just made things more interesting. If you disagree with that, you're more than likely an idiot, but I can't help you out there, can I?
TNA should bring it back because well... it's better. Like I've said, we can allow for a faster pace in matches, more chances of stunts and also, the steel cage with six sides looks pretty fucking awesome too. Bring back six sides and then well... we might see some more interest in TNA/Impact Wrestling being different.
Back in 2004, TNA/Impact Wrestling tried something new. No, not wrestling, but the use of a Six-Sided ring. The squared circle became a hexagonal squared circle. It wasn't for the sake of showing off, but this ring had benefits. Multiple benefits. Having just two extra ring posts meant that there was so much more that could be done. It wasn't the first Wrestling promotion that had a six-sided ring, but it's probably the most memorable of them. Let's just take a look at it;
Not only was it better looking than your normal Four-Sided ring, but there were multiple ways in which the ring worked to allow for more interesting usage of the ring. Let's gets started on that.
Better looking? Well, that is just your opinion. The opinion of the likes of Hulk Hogan, Eric Bischoff, AJ Styles and Lance Storm is that the ring made TNA look like they belonged to the bush leagues. It made them look unprofessional, the ring screamed "silly gimmick", made viewing the matches difficult and ate up too much off the screen. Since these are guys that are actually involved with the working of the wrestling business unlike you, do not blame me or the judges if we choose to hold their opinion as the more relevant one.
The Six-Sided ring allowed for faster paced action.
Think about it for a second. With each ring post and set of turnbuckles being closer together, people could move between them quicker than from post to post in a four-sided ring. People could jump from different angles & moves could be landed a lot quicker.
[YOUTUBE]3Z-GJrRVZrg[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]DVOSFf1Udyg[/YOUTUBE]
Two matches here, one a simple tag & the other the "Feast or Fired" gimmick match from TNA's own brain. The tag match utilizes all of the different areas in the ring and the Feast or Fired hangs 4 Briefcases above 4 different ring posts, but with the extra turnbuckles, people can climb to reach a case, but have someone leap towards them and hit them possiibly with a dropkick, thanks to the extra turnbuckle's boost!
1. Oh come on now! You claim as if TNA is the only place where we have seen such fast paced matches. The cruiserweights in WCW and ECW did this on a regular basis inside a four sided ring. Hell, Beer Money and MCMG, the guys who are competing in the match that you just showed, had a series of fast paced matches inside a four sided ring in 2010 which many wrestling fans claimed consisted of some of the best tag team matches ever seen. Have a look at their Ultimate X match.
[YOUTUBE]und4dXM1PRU[/YOUTUBE]
Hell, I can see some fast paced action, some crazy moves but more importantly the match is just as good as any match the two teams have ever had in a six sided ring. Let us see one more match.
[YOUTUBE]PcWHrGAvHeo[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]rgKFzffkGio[/YOUTUBE]
Yeah, I could not get the full match on youtube but the point that I am trying to make is apparent. You do not need a six sided ring to have a good fast paced match in TNA.
2. Furthermore, speed is not the only thing that a performer utilizes in wrestling to put on a good match. Yes, TNA has a lots of wrestlers who wrestle a fast paced style like the MCMG, Austin Aries, Styles. But they also have guys like Morgan, Anderson, Kurt Angle, Sting who do not wrestle a spot based high flying style match. As I have proved already, you do not need a six sided ring to have a fast paced match. I think you agree with me here that the ring is of little utility to those wrestlers who do not wrestle fast.
3. As for the feast or fired match, when was the last time TNA had that match? I think that was back at Final Resolution 2009. The fact that we have not had a FoF match in TNA ever since suggests that there is not much of a need for a match. Is that why you want the six sided ring to return permanently? There is no surity that the FoF match will happen ever again in TNA and yet that is a part of your reasoning for the return of a six sided ring? Incredible!
4. Also, while it is apparent that a FoF match can be held inside a four sided ring too, let us agree with your arguement for a second that the six sided ring makes the FoF match better. The FoF is still a gimmick match which is held once or at most twice a year. Why does the six sided ring need to return permanently for that? The ring can easily be used for this one gimmick match and then dispensed immediately after.
Did it help PPV Buys?
Below, in "Spoiler" tags are the average PPV buys for the years 05, 06, 07, 08 & 2011. The first four years all were TNA in the height of their popularity, with a SIX-SIDED ring. In 2011, when Hogan introduced four sides, you'll see a difference.
Final Resolution 2005 15-20,000
Against All Odds 2005 15-20,000
Destination X 2005 15-20,000
Lockdown 2005 25-30,000
Hard Justice 2005 15-20,000
Slammiversary 2005 15-20,000
No Surrender 2005 10-15,000
Sacrifice 2005 10-15,000
Unbreakable 2005 10-15,000
Bound For Glory 2005 30-35,000
Genesis 2005 15-20,000
Turning Point 2005 25-30,000
2005 Average 17-22,000
Final Resolution 2006 40-45,000
Against All Odds 2006 30-35,000
Destination X 2006 25-30,000
Lockdown 2006 40-45,000
Sacrifice 2006 20-25,000
Slammiversary 2006 30-35,000
Victory Road 2006 20-25,000
Hard Justice 2006 30-35,000
No Surrender 2006 25-30,000
Bound For Glory 2006 55-60,000
Genesis 2006 55-60,000
Turning Point 2006 30-35,000
2006 Average 33-38,000
Final Resolution 2007 30-35,000
Against All Odds 2007 20-25,000
Destination X 2007 25-30,000
Lockdown 2007 30-35,000
Sacrifice 2007 20-25,000
Slammiversary 2007 20-25,000
Victory Road 2007 15-20,000
Hard Justice 2007 20-25,000
No Surrender 2007 15-20,000
Bound For Glory 2007 35-40,000
Genesis 2007 20-25,000
Turning Point 2007 15-20,000
2007 Average 22-27,000
Final Resolution 2008 20-25,000
Against All Odds 2008 20-25,000
Destination X 2008 15-20,000
Lockdown 2008 50-55,000
Sacrifice 2008 20-25,000
Slammiversary 2008 25-30,000
Victory Road 2008 20-25,000
Hard Justice 2008 30-35,000
No Surrender 2008 15-20,000
Bound For Glory 2008 35-40,000
Turning Point 2008 30-35,000
Final Resolution-December 2006 15-20,000
2008 Average 24-29,000
6/12 Slammiversary - 8,500
7/10 Destination X - 8,000
8/7 Hard Justice - 7,500
11/13 Turning Point - 9,000
12/11 Final Resolution - 8,000
Make the comparison for yourself. TNA, yes have been losing fans throughout the years, just look! Back through the years of Six-Sides, TNA were selling in the tens of thousands. Kurt Angle debuted in a six-sided ring & garnered nearly 60,000 buys. Notice though, back in the years of the hexagon, Destination X was always one of the highest bought PPV's of the year.
1. You are spot on with the bolded part dude. TNA have been losing fans for a number of years as is apparent from the PPV buys that you just posted. That is not true for TNA but for all wrestling companies. And that slump has continued. Here, have a look at the PPV buys of WWE in 2009 and 2011 and compare.
WWE: 2009 PPV buys
- Royal Rumble did 450,000 buys
- No Way Out did 272,000
- WrestleMania 25 did 960,000
- Backlash did 182,000
- Judgment Day did 228,000
- Extreme Rules did 213,000 buys
- The Bash did 178,000
- Night of Champions did 267,000
- SummerSlam did 369,000
- Breaking Point did 169,000
- Hell in a Cell 283,000
- Survivor Series 235,000
- TLC 228,000
1/30 Royal Rumble Boston, MA- 476,000
2/20 Elimination Chamber Oakland, CA- 212,000
4/3 Wrestlemania 27 Atlanta, GA-1,124,000
5/1 Extreme Rules Tampa, FL-216,000
5/22 Over the Limit Seattle, WA-145,000
6/19 Capitol Punishment Washington, DC-176,000
7/17 Money in the Bank Chicago, IL-195,000
8/14 Summerslam Los Angeles, CA-296,000
9/18 Night of Champions Buffalo, NY-195,000
10/2 Hell in A Cell New Orleans, LA-182,000
10/23 Vengeance San Antonio, TX-121,000
11/20 Survivor Series New York, NY-281,000
12/18 TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs Baltimore, MD-179,000
As you can see, this is not a problem of TNA switching rings, it's a universal problem. The buyrates are going down everywhere and almost every WWE PPV scored less in 2011 than their counterparts in 2009. This has mostly been due to the excessive number of PPVs, a large number of choices in the entertainment field, illegal streaming, increased price of PPVs and the economic conditions prevailing in the US.
2. Furthermore, as this link below will show you, TNA also raised the price of it's PPV's late in 2009. That has also contributed to the decrease in the PPV numbers
The PPV numbers have declined but that is not because TNA abandoned the six sided ring. In fact, the fact that Destination X did average numbers in 2011 shows that the six sided ring is anything but a draw. More on that when we come to that point.
3. Another thing that determines the interest level of the viewers in the product are TV ratings.
The 2009 average TV rating for iMPACT in a six sided ring was 1.14
So, I ask you judges, in what world is it possible for the six sided ring to have an adverse effect on the PPV buys but a negative effect on the TV ratings as is apparent here. This proves once and for all the the decline of the PPV ratings has nothing to do with the removal of the six sided ring.
Maybe it didn't do much in 2011 where it was a "comeback" for one night only, but it sold more than Hard Justice & possibly even more than Final Resolution. You can't say it wasn't a great PPV either, with matches such as AJ Styles vs Christopher Daniels and Austin Aries vs Jack Evans vs Low Ki vs Zema Ion. It was even rated an 8 out of 10 by Slam! Sports. Also, 411 Mania called it the Probably the best and most consistent offering on PPV from TNA so far this year, and a potential candidate for PPV of the year for the company most likely by the time the end of the year rolls around. It may have been lacking in Main Event status stars, but the whole point was to showcase the X-Division.... and Abyss.
What was that Rattlesnake, it didn't make a difference? I think it did.
The return six sided ring was promoted as an attraction in the case of Destination X 2011. If it was as huge a draw as you are claiming it was, then maybe it should have attracted a truckload of buys especially because the six sided ring was loved so much and people had withdrawn from the product during the time of the four sided ring. That is what you are trying to tell here, aren't you?
But it did a pretty shoddy number by all accounts. Nowhere has it been stated that it did more than Final Resolution either. Gerweck.net does not have figures of all the PPV's but other sites have reported Bound For Glory as having done 20-25000 buys as well. BFG did pretty decent business last year as well by garnering 35k-40k buys, all inside a four sided ring.
Compared to that Destination X has done some pretty shoddy business in 2011. I do not care which guy has given what reviews. The fact is that it did poor business, which means that the audience just did not want to see what TNA put out for them in that PPV, one of which was the six sided ring. Business reviews are the most accurate reviews for a product. This is a point that you are conveniently brushing under the rug, but you just cannot.
The low buyrate of Destination X proves that there is little demand for a six sided ring in TNA nowadays. If there would have been a demand for it, the PPV would have sold more. There is no point bringing back permanently for which there is little demand.
Oh wait, I forgot! It was different!
See, if you complained about the Six-Sided ring, or you weren't fussed about it disappearing for the usual four, then you're nothing more than a traditionalist, obviously. But many people gave it a try and loved it. Lots of people enjoyed the Hexagonal style of TNA's ring and didn't ever want to see it go, like me. It was more interesting, I got a kick from it and it was different to the WWE. See, that was one of the main reasons I liked it. It rivalled the other company that was more popular than it. The uniquity of six-sides just made things more interesting. If you disagree with that, you're more than likely an idiot, but I can't help you out there, can I?
People did not fuss about it for no reason. It made the organization look unprofessional because they were trying to stand out with style rather than with substance. Or in other words with a gimmick rather than with their stories. It was like CZW. The biggest draw of CZW is the fact that they are a hardcore promotion. That was what TNA promoted it's ring as. Now, CZW needs to do that because most wrestlers there are not as talented but TNA does not and particularily now, it does not need any gimmick to stand out.
Guys like AJ Styles, Austin Aries, Samoa Joe, Beer Money and MCMG are great wrestlers and pretty well known names. Hell, you have Kurt Angle and Jeff Hardy who are even bigger names. A promotion with this sort of talent does not need to depend on a gimmick like the six sided ring to stand out.
Just because it was different does not mean it was good or in any way profitable to the product.
In the words of Eric Bischoff, it also ate up too much screen space and took the depth out of the arena. Hogan, AJ Styles and Lance Storm all say that it made the organization difficult to be taken seriously because of the gimmicky nature of the ring. All these are legit complaints, not the ravings of a traditionalist. Hell, what proof have you given for your statements man. You say that just because it was different means it was good. Is there anyone relevant who agrees with this statement.
TNA should bring it back because well... it's better. Like I've said, we can allow for a faster pace in matches, more chances of stunts and also, the steel cage with six sides looks pretty fucking awesome too. Bring back six sides and then well... we might see some more interest in TNA/Impact Wrestling being different.
Better looking? Well, that is just your opinion. The opinion of the likes of Hulk Hogan, Eric Bischoff, AJ Styles and Lance Storm is that the ring made TNA look like they belonged to the bush leagues. It made them look unprofessional, the ring screamed "silly gimmick", made viewing the matches difficult and ate up too much off the screen. Since these are guys that are actually involved with the working of the wrestling business unlike you, do not blame me or the judges if we choose to hold their opinion as the more relevant one.
Oh you're back? Took your time. This debate would work a lot quicker if we held it inside a six-sided ring.
Strange, because although Hulk Hogan & Bischoff didn't like the six-sided Ring, Jeff Jarrett did. Here's what he said about the changing from 6 to 4 sides.
The decision to get rid of the six-sided ring was made by "the powers that be" when they came in. Also makes sure to say that the six-sided ring is near and dear to his heart and he absolutely had nothing to do with going to a four-sided ring.
Hogan & Bischoff are very obvious traditionalists. They're old men who didn't step into a Hexagon until they moved to TNA. Saying that Hogan's opinion here really & truly mattered would be like Dixie Carter taking over Monday Night RAW and changing the design of the WWE Championship because it was "Stupid". Also, it's starting to look like a lot of people didn't even know about the change from six to four sides! Eric Young, in the same interview as Jarrett said this;
I had no clue about the switch to the four-sided ring and one day I showed up for work and boom, there it was.
Now tell me that this wasn't a decision highly influenced by the Hulkster, because it was. Dixie may have just gone along with it because they said "It'll be more beneficial". It really hasn't done anything for them.
My final words just on this topic are; AJ Styles is a contradictary penis. AJ spoke to British Newspaper "The Sun" and this is what he really said when talking about the six-sided ring.
I hated to see the six-sided ring leave and I was excited to see it return. I have, I guess, got kind of used to the four-sided ring and had forgotten how hard it was to perform in the six-sided one. But the six-sided ring is what made TNA. It may have only been back for one event but we showed how special it is!
No. What I'm saying is, it's quicker in a six-sided ring, to move from post to post, where moves may then be executed quicker. With your four sides and four turnbuckles, it takes longer to move from corner to corner, don't say it doesn't 'cos it does. It's a lot quicker to from A to B to C to D to E to F. I'm just telling the truth, if there's a shorter distance between each turnbuckle, then it's quicker to get to them.
The cruiserweights in WCW and ECW did this on a regular basis inside a four sided ring. Hell, Beer Money and MCMG, the guys who are competing in the match that you just showed, had a series of fast paced matches inside a four sided ring in 2010 which many wrestling fans claimed consisted of some of the best tag team matches ever seen. Have a look at their Ultimate X match.
Yes its fast-paced, I won't deny it. But remember back to Ultimate X of old, where someone could jump from one of the two empty turnbuckles and maybe drop someone to the mat? They do it now, but having a moment where someone could be down & to spring up and attack, that was nice.
Hell, I can see some fast paced action, some crazy moves but more importantly the match is just as good as any match the two teams have ever had in a six sided ring. Let us see one more match.
[YOUTUBE]PcWHrGAvHeo[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]rgKFzffkGio[/YOUTUBE]
Yeah, I could not get the full match on youtube but the point that I am trying to make is apparent. You do not need a six sided ring to have a good fast paced match in TNA.
If you're gonna fail, fail in style people! That was it right there. I've never once said you HAVE to have the six-sided ring to have a fast paced match, but it'd sure help. I mean, you could have a 6-Team, 12-Man Tag Team Match thanks to it. Talk about clusterfuck, it'd be one amazing clusterfuck.
2. Furthermore, speed is not the only thing that a performer utilizes in wrestling to put on a good match. Yes, TNA has a lots of wrestlers who wrestle a fast paced style like the MCMG, Austin Aries, Styles. But they also have guys like Morgan, Anderson, Kurt Angle, Sting who do not wrestle a spot based high flying style match. As I have proved already, you do not need a six sided ring to have a fast paced match. I think you agree with me here that the ring is of little utility to those wrestlers who do not wrestle fast.
I don't agree with you. Why is it of little utility? There's still four sets of ring ropes, just two extra ring posts. I don't see how that is a hinderance.
3. As for the feast or fired match, when was the last time TNA had that match? I think that was back at Final Resolution 2009. The fact that we have not had a FoF match in TNA ever since suggests that there is not much of a need for a match. Is that why you want the six sided ring to return permanently? There is no surity that the FoF match will happen ever again in TNA and yet that is a part of your reasoning for the return of a six sided ring? Incredible!
I used the Feast or Fired simply as an example. An example you've read WAY too much into. Spend your time replying quicker rather than reading into something that wasn't meant to be read into, otherwise I'll laugh.
4. Also, while it is apparent that a FoF match can be held inside a four sided ring too, let us agree with your arguement for a second that the six sided ring makes the FoF match better. The FoF is still a gimmick match which is held once or at most twice a year. Why does the six sided ring need to return permanently for that? The ring can easily be used for this one gimmick match and then dispensed immediately after.
Again, I didn't say that the six-sided ring needed to return permanently because of the Feast or Fired. It needs to return, because it set the company from others. The WWE have four sides on their ring. Again, I'm bringing in ANOTHER interview with AJ Styles, where he proves it was Hogan & Bischoff's sole choice to remove the six-sided ring. Here's, once more, what AJ has said.
It was different, we were the first American promotion to use the six-sided ring, and it is what made TNA different to every other wrestling company out there. We used that ring for a good six years before (Hulk) Hogan and (Eric) Bishoff came in and introduced the traditional four-sided ring.
Again, even Styles mentions how it made them different. It's the main reason why it needs to come back. When Hogan's fucked off, six-sides should definitely make a return.
1. You are spot on with the bolded part dude. TNA have been losing fans for a number of years as is apparent from the PPV buys that you just posted. That is not true for TNA but for all wrestling companies. And that slump has continued. Here, have a look at the PPV buys of WWE in 2009 and 2011 and compare.
WWE: 2009 PPV buys
- Royal Rumble did 450,000 buys
- No Way Out did 272,000
- WrestleMania 25 did 960,000
- Backlash did 182,000
- Judgment Day did 228,000
- Extreme Rules did 213,000 buys
- The Bash did 178,000
- Night of Champions did 267,000
- SummerSlam did 369,000
- Breaking Point did 169,000
- Hell in a Cell 283,000
- Survivor Series 235,000
- TLC 228,000
1/30 Royal Rumble Boston, MA- 476,000
2/20 Elimination Chamber Oakland, CA- 212,000
4/3 Wrestlemania 27 Atlanta, GA-1,124,000
5/1 Extreme Rules Tampa, FL-216,000
5/22 Over the Limit Seattle, WA-145,000
6/19 Capitol Punishment Washington, DC-176,000
7/17 Money in the Bank Chicago, IL-195,000
8/14 Summerslam Los Angeles, CA-296,000
9/18 Night of Champions Buffalo, NY-195,000
10/2 Hell in A Cell New Orleans, LA-182,000
10/23 Vengeance San Antonio, TX-121,000
11/20 Survivor Series New York, NY-281,000
12/18 TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs Baltimore, MD-179,000
As you can see, this is not a problem of TNA switching rings, it's a universal problem. The buyrates are going down everywhere and almost every WWE PPV scored less in 2011 than their counterparts in 2009. This has mostly been due to the excessive number of PPVs, a large number of choices in the entertainment field, illegal streaming, increased price of PPVs and the economic conditions prevailing in the US.
I love how you didn't pick 2010, because that would've shown you up and you picked 2011 because a few of the PPV's that year had the WORST ideas behind them. Capitol Punishment being one of them. Then again, this years Wrestlemania was the most bought PPV ever, your point is? Trying to score points for using stats & figures is cool, but not where they're this bad.
2. Furthermore, as this link below will show you, TNA also raised the price of it's PPV's late in 2009. That has also contributed to the decrease in the PPV numbers
The PPV numbers have declined but that is not because TNA abandoned the six sided ring. In fact, the fact that Destination X did average numbers in 2011 shows that the six sided ring is anything but a draw. More on that when we come to that point.
I wouldn't know about this increase in price, what with getting every TNA PPV for free 'cos I live in the UK. Reminds me, I need to set Lockdown to record on my Sky+ tomorrow. Thanks Rattlesnake.
Anyways, is the fact that Destination X got "average" buys proof that the ring isn't a draw? You yourself mentioned that the prices had gone up. With the lack of "Main Event" stars throughout the evening and the hike in price, why couldn't both of those be factors? Huh? Tell me that one.
3. Another thing that determines the interest level of the viewers in the product are TV ratings.
The 2009 average TV rating for iMPACT in a six sided ring was 1.14
So, I ask you judges, in what world is it possible for the six sided ring to have an adverse effect on the PPV buys but a negative effect on the TV ratings as is apparent here. This proves once and for all the the decline of the PPV ratings has nothing to do with the removal of the six sided ring.
Again, what about 2010? Could 2010 just have been the year where TNA's TV rating for iMPACT was higher? What about the years before 09? Why not grab some more ratings for us Rattlesnake, or is there something to hide?
The return six sided ring was promoted as an attraction in the case of Destination X 2011. If it was as huge a draw as you are claiming it was, then maybe it should have attracted a truckload of buys especially because the six sided ring was loved so much and people had withdrawn from the product during the time of the four sided ring. That is what you are trying to tell here, aren't you?
Stop mentioning the same thing over & over again. Is Destination X the only ammo you have? I was trying to tell it, but having realised the price hike, this could be all the reason for it.
But it did a pretty shoddy number by all accounts. Nowhere has it been stated that it did more than Final Resolution either. Gerweck.net does not have figures of all the PPV's but other sites have reported Bound For Glory as having done 20-25000 buys as well. BFG did pretty decent business last year as well by garnering 35k-40k buys, all inside a four sided ring.
Compared to that Destination X has done some pretty shoddy business in 2011. I do not care which guy has given what reviews. The fact is that it did poor business, which means that the audience just did not want to see what TNA put out for them in that PPV, one of which was the six sided ring. Business reviews are the most accurate reviews for a product. This is a point that you are conveniently brushing under the rug, but you just cannot.
AGAIN WITH THE DESTINATION X. Also, reviews are a key point to how OTHER PEOPLE think a company is doing with their shows. Destination X was one of the highest revered shows of 2011, whether it got in the buys or not.
The low buyrate of Destination X proves that there is little demand for a six sided ring in TNA nowadays. If there would have been a demand for it, the PPV would have sold more. There is no point bringing back permanently for which there is little demand.
People did not fuss about it for no reason. It made the organization look unprofessional because they were trying to stand out with style rather than with substance. Or in other words with a gimmick rather than with their stories. It was like CZW. The biggest draw of CZW is the fact that they are a hardcore promotion. That was what TNA promoted it's ring as. Now, CZW needs to do that because most wrestlers there are not as talented but TNA does not and particularily now, it does not need any gimmick to stand out.
TNA promoted their ring as a Hardcore Promotion? Of course I know that's not what you're getting at, but please make sense. I don't see how it makes them look unprofessional, when all they're doing is trying something new. If you've done something today that you had never done before, you're unprofessional. Not my words, but Rattlesnakes.
Guys like AJ Styles, Austin Aries, Samoa Joe, Beer Money and MCMG are great wrestlers and pretty well known names. Hell, you have Kurt Angle and Jeff Hardy who are even bigger names. A promotion with this sort of talent does not need to depend on a gimmick like the six sided ring to stand out.
In the words of Eric Bischoff, it also ate up too much screen space and took the depth out of the arena. Hogan, AJ Styles and Lance Storm all say that it made the organization difficult to be taken seriously because of the gimmicky nature of the ring. All these are legit complaints, not the ravings of a traditionalist. Hell, what proof have you given for your statements man. You say that just because it was different means it was good. Is there anyone relevant who agrees with this statement.
Sorry what? Have you seen the size of their four sided ring? It's fucking huge and takes up at least 1.5 times more space than the six sided ring did. Plus, when they debuted it, it had that pathetic walk down path that led to it. It was ugly and still is. TNA may have a four sided ring now, but it still looks awful. The six-sides looked lovely and it was NOT taking up space. Shut up.
I've managed to show you that AJ says otherwise and Lance Storm isn't even related to TNA, maybe he's just complaining? I think he might be!
Every single statement you wrote here has been disproven.
I love how you didn't pick 2010, because that would've shown you up and you picked 2011 because a few of the PPV's that year had the WORST ideas behind them. Capitol Punishment being one of them. Then again, this years Wrestlemania was the most bought PPV ever, your point is? Trying to score points for using stats & figures is cool, but not where they're this bad.
I wouldn't know about this increase in price, what with getting every TNA PPV for free 'cos I live in the UK. Reminds me, I need to set Lockdown to record on my Sky+ tomorrow. Thanks Rattlesnake.
Again, what about 2010? Could 2010 just have been the year where TNA's TV rating for iMPACT was higher? What about the years before 09? Why not grab some more ratings for us Rattlesnake, or is there something to hide?
I did not mention the 2010 figures not because I had something to hide but because you showed us a comparison between the 2009 and 2011 PPV buys of TNA and I wanted to show you just how much the buys have been affected for all wrestling companies in these two years. In fact, the 2010 figures just prove my point further. Here they are:
1/31 Royal Rumble Atlanta, GA 16,697 465,000
2/21 Elimination Chamber St. Louis, MO 287,000 3/28 Wrestlemania 26 Phoenix, AZ 885,000 4/25 Extreme Rules Baltimore, MD 201,000 5/23 Over the Limit Detroit, MI 218,000 6/20 Fatal Four Way Uniondale, NY 158,000 7/18 Money in the Bank Kansas City, MO 164,000 8/15 Summerslam Los Angeles, CA 349,000 9/19 Night of Champions Rosemont, IL 165,000 10/3 Hell in A Cell Dallas, TX 210,000 10/24 Bragging Rights Minneapolis, MN 137,000
11/21 Survivor Series Miami, FL 244,000 12/19 TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs Houston, TX 195,000
As you can see, PPV's that I have bolded garnerned lesser buys than their 2009 counterparts. That makes it a total of 10 PPV's. The downward trend has continued in 2011 with PPV's scoring less than their 2010 counterparts with a few exceptions and, as stated earlier, lesser than their 2009 counterparts as well with a few exceptions like WrestleMania.
This proves that the problem of decreasing PPV buys in TNA is something that has nothing to do with the removal of the six sided ring from the product. It is a problem that has affected every wrestling company in the US due to reasons like increased number of PPV's, increased pricing, financial conditions in the US etc.
Like you mentioned, you do not have to buy TNA PPV's and that is a place where TNA loses out. WWE is able to maintain it's buys somewhat by having people pay for their PPV's overseas as well. But TNA shows it's PPV's free overseas. The UK especially is a huge market for TNA but they are unable to extract PPV buys from there because they show their PPV's free over there. That is also a disadvantage for TNA.
Also, you asked for the 2010 TNA ratings. Yes, the average is 1.06. The ratings went down due to some bad storylines and that horrendous Monday Night War experiment that TNA did. But what is also interesting to note is the fact that TNA averaged 1.06 in 2008 as well in a six sided ring. Which proves once and for all that the six sided ring has absolutely zero effect on PPV buys or ratings.
In fact the digger I deep, I find that except for 2009, TNA did even worse numbers than 2010 as far as TV ratings go in the years before 2008. It did an average of 0.89 in 2006 and 1.04 in 2007.
It is apparent that the six sided ring has no impact whatsoever on the product. TNA are currently using a four sided ring. So why should TNA change back to the six sided ring if there is nothing to gain from it?
2. Destination X 2011
Anyways, is the fact that Destination X got "average" buys proof that the ring isn't a draw? You yourself mentioned that the prices had gone up. With the lack of "Main Event" stars throughout the evening and the hike in price, why couldn't both of those be factors? Huh? Tell me that one.
Stop mentioning the same thing over & over again. Is Destination X the only ammo you have? I was trying to tell it, but having realised the price hike, this could be all the reason for it.
AGAIN WITH THE DESTINATION X. Also, reviews are a key point to how OTHER PEOPLE think a company is doing with their shows. Destination X was one of the highest revered shows of 2011, whether it got in the buys or not.
Huh, what!? How is the pricing of the PPV's a factor here. Was Turning Point 2011 priced lower than Destination X? Or was Slamanivversary or Bound For Glory? Nope, they were not and Destination X drew lower than them. I am not comparing PPV's from a time when the price was different, I am comparing D-X with the other PPV's that were held this year. It drew a shoddy number proving that there isn't much demand to see the ring again.
So, if there is no demand to see the ring again, then why should it be brought back?
3. Faster paced matches with six sides are a myth.
No. What I'm saying is, it's quicker in a six-sided ring, to move from post to post, where moves may then be executed quicker. With your four sides and four turnbuckles, it takes longer to move from corner to corner, don't say it doesn't 'cos it does. It's a lot quicker to from A to B to C to D to E to F. I'm just telling the truth, if there's a shorter distance between each turnbuckle, then it's quicker to get to them.
And this matters how exactly? I have shown you that you can have fast paced matches without the six sided ring. The matches that you showed in the six sided ring in TNA are not discernably faster than the matches that I showed you.
Yes its fast-paced, I won't deny it. But remember back to Ultimate X of old, where someone could jump from one of the two empty turnbuckles and maybe drop someone to the mat? They do it now, but having a moment where someone could be down & to spring up and attack, that was nice.
Yeah, a few spots are your arguement for changing the entire ring. Like I said, these spots do not make a huge difference to the quality of the match. You can have a great match even without these spots.
If you're gonna fail, fail in style people! That was it right there. I've never once said you HAVE to have the six-sided ring to have a fast paced match, but it'd sure help. I mean, you could have a 6-Team, 12-Man Tag Team Match thanks to it. Talk about clusterfuck, it'd be one amazing clusterfuck.
Nah, you clearly said that you can have faster paced matches in a 6 sided ring as compared to a four sided ring and yet there is no real proof of it.
You know what is an amazing clusterfuck? MITB, TLC matches( both 3 team and 4 team matches) and they have all taken place in a four sided ring.
I don't agree with you. Why is it of little utility? There's still four sets of ring ropes, just two extra ring posts. I don't see how that is a hinderance.
It would not hinder them but it would not be much different from having a match in a four sided ring which currently exists in TNA.
So again, no real impact on the matches either. Does a reason even exist to bring back the six sided ring?
4. The "It's different!" debate and other assorted opinions.
Strange, because although Hulk Hogan & Bischoff didn't like the six-sided Ring, Jeff Jarrett did. Here's what he said about the changing from 6 to 4 sides.
Hogan & Bischoff are very obvious traditionalists. They're old men who didn't step into a Hexagon until they moved to TNA. Saying that Hogan's opinion here really & truly mattered would be like Dixie Carter taking over Monday Night RAW and changing the design of the WWE Championship because it was "Stupid". Also, it's starting to look like a lot of people didn't even know about the change from six to four sides! Eric Young, in the same interview as Jarrett said this;
Now tell me that this wasn't a decision highly influenced by the Hulkster, because it was. Dixie may have just gone along with it because they said "It'll be more beneficial". It really hasn't done anything for them.
My final words just on this topic are; AJ Styles is a contradictary penis. AJ spoke to British Newspaper "The Sun" and this is what he really said when talking about the six-sided ring.
Again, I'm bringing in ANOTHER interview with AJ Styles, where he proves it was Hogan & Bischoff's sole choice to remove the six-sided ring. Here's, once more, what AJ has said.
Again, even Styles mentions how it made them different. It's the main reason why it needs to come back. When Hogan's fucked off, six-sides should definitely make a return.
I never said anything about whose decision it was to bring the four sided ring. It appears to be Hogan and Bischoff's decision but their reasons behind it appear to be better. Hogan compared the six sided ring to a playpen arena, Bischoff called it gimmicky, both of which are very understandable arguements.
What are Jarrett and Young's reasons for liking the ring over the four sided ring? Nothing. Zilch. Nada. It's just an indication of a preference. Should we bring back the ring based on some guys' preference? Also, it is apparent as to who the bigger names are in wrestling Hogan and Bischoff or Jarrett and Eric Young. You decide whose opinion you would want to hold as more reliable.
As for AJ, I won't call AJ a contradictory penis. I said in my arguements that he is a six sided ring enthusiast but he is ready to weigh the pros and cons of it as well. He talked about the ring making TNA look less than serious and in the interview you posted he also talked about how it is harder to wrestle in a six sided ring. In fact, the link you posted does not have all the excerpts from the interview. Let me show you another link.
I have, I guess, got kind of used to the four-sided ring and had forgotten how hard it was to perform in the six-sided one. The top rope stuff was harder, the ropes are thicker and to be honest it threw me off a bit.
The only pro that he has mentioned, as you posted, was that it was different. Well, like I have said Johnny, different is not always better. What makes CZW different from any other promotion in the US is the fact that it is a hardcore promotion. Chikara's outrageous gimmicks and fun quotient make it different from any other organization in the US. How successful are they?
TNA promoted their ring as a Hardcore Promotion? Of course I know that's not what you're getting at, but please make sense. I don't see how it makes them look unprofessional, when all they're doing is trying something new. If you've done something today that you had never done before, you're unprofessional. Not my words, but Rattlesnakes.
Just trying out something new does not make them unprofessional. Hell, if TNA does a new and refreshing story tomorrow, I would be the first one to applaud them. What makes them unprofessional is doing just what they were trying to do with the six sided ring and that is try to draw with a gimmick just like CZW try to draw with the gimmick that they are a hardcore promotion. The ring cannot help them in any other way. No one cares about CZW and it puts TNA in the same category which is something that they would do better to avoid.
Sorry what? Have you seen the size of their four sided ring? It's fucking huge and takes up at least 1.5 times more space than the six sided ring did. Plus, when they debuted it, it had that pathetic walk down path that led to it. It was ugly and still is. TNA may have a four sided ring now, but it still looks awful. The six-sides looked lovely and it was NOT taking up space. Shut up.
I've managed to show you that the "it's different" arguement is really obselete. AJ has also mentioned some disadvantages of the ring which you have been unable to disprove as of yet. Lance Storm is someone whose opinion is held pretty highly by both fans and wrestlers alike.
True, mainly because at your pace nothing would get done quickly. Feel sorry for your woman. I'm typing this for the second time now because Firefox fucked me up and crashed, not letting me recover anything. So now I'm a bit pissed off.
1. 2010 PPV figures
I did not mention the 2010 figures not because I had something to hide but because you showed us a comparison between the 2009 and 2011 PPV buys of TNA and I wanted to show you just how much the buys have been affected for all wrestling companies in these two years. In fact, the 2010 figures just prove my point further. Here they are:
1/31 Royal Rumble Atlanta, GA 16,697 465,000
2/21 Elimination Chamber St. Louis, MO 287,000 3/28 Wrestlemania 26 Phoenix, AZ 885,000 4/25 Extreme Rules Baltimore, MD 201,000 5/23 Over the Limit Detroit, MI 218,000 6/20 Fatal Four Way Uniondale, NY 158,000 7/18 Money in the Bank Kansas City, MO 164,000 8/15 Summerslam Los Angeles, CA 349,000 9/19 Night of Champions Rosemont, IL 165,000 10/3 Hell in A Cell Dallas, TX 210,000 10/24 Bragging Rights Minneapolis, MN 137,000
11/21 Survivor Series Miami, FL 244,000 12/19 TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs Houston, TX 195,000
As you can see, PPV's that I have bolded garnerned lesser buys than their 2009 counterparts. That makes it a total of 10 PPV's. The downward trend has continued in 2011 with PPV's scoring less than their 2010 counterparts with a few exceptions and, as stated earlier, lesser than their 2009 counterparts as well with a few exceptions like WrestleMania.
Ok, I mentioned buyrates, didn't need all of this. But thanks for wasting the time to talk to us about the WWE's Buyrates, totally relevant to whether or not a different wrestling company should bring back a ring with six sides.
This proves that the problem of decreasing PPV buys in TNA is something that has nothing to do with the removal of the six sided ring from the product. It is a problem that has affected every wrestling company in the US due to reasons like increased number of PPV's, increased pricing, financial conditions in the US etc.
A mention of the ring! Took you what, four paragraphs? But if the six-sided ring hasn't made PPV buys drop, then why not bring it back? I see no reason not to! It wasn't a massive problem that turned people away. Everyone likes something different and to be honest, I'd take men fighting inside a hexagon over Eric Bischoff and Hulk Hogan anyday because it's DIFFERENT. It's UNIQUE(ish).
Like you mentioned, you do not have to buy TNA PPV's and that is a place where TNA loses out. WWE is able to maintain it's buys somewhat by having people pay for their PPV's overseas as well. But TNA shows it's PPV's free overseas. The UK especially is a huge market for TNA but they are unable to extract PPV buys from there because they show their PPV's free over there. That is also a disadvantage for TNA.
Also, you asked for the 2010 TNA ratings. Yes, the average is 1.06. The ratings went down due to some bad storylines and that horrendous Monday Night War experiment that TNA did. But what is also interesting to note is the fact that TNA averaged 1.06 in 2008 as well in a six sided ring. Which proves once and for all that the six sided ring has absolutely zero effect on PPV buys or ratings.
Again, we're in a new year now and a new time. We have the Square, swap it for a hexagon please.
In fact the digger I deep, I find that except for 2009, TNA did even worse numbers than 2010 as far as TV ratings go in the years before 2008. It did an average of 0.89 in 2006 and 1.04 in 2007.
It is apparent that the six sided ring has no impact whatsoever on the product. TNA are currently using a four sided ring. So why should TNA change back to the six sided ring if there is nothing to gain from it?
Like I said, you can gain this "Uniqueness" that the other companies don't have. You can go back to the Six Sides of Steel, which sounds better than a Steel Cage match and it's certainly looks more more interesting. Also, were TNA ever to bring back Feast or Fired, they have enough Title Belts now that Six ring posts would be beneficial to them! World Title, Tag Titles, X-Dvision Title, Television Title & possibly, TWO Fired. Might make for a very interesting show.
2. Destination X 2011
Huh, what!? How is the pricing of the PPV's a factor here. Was Turning Point 2011 priced lower than Destination X? Or was Slamanivversary or Bound For Glory? Nope, they were not and Destination X drew lower than them. I am not comparing PPV's from a time when the price was different, I am comparing D-X with the other PPV's that were held this year. It drew a shoddy number proving that there isn't much demand to see the ring again.
So, if there is no demand to see the ring again, then why should it be brought back?
Slamanivversary? What? You must mean Slammiversary, at least I hope you bloody well do. What I was saying though is that if PPV's were cheaper in the past, then the prices have been hiked up, that's going to be cause for certain people to not buy ONE Pay-per-view. It's definitely a factor, don't say it isn't.
3. Faster paced matches with six sides are a myth.
And this matters how exactly? I have shown you that you can have fast paced matches without the six sided ring. The matches that you showed in the six sided ring in TNA are not discernably faster than the matches that I showed you.
Yeah, a few spots are your arguement for changing the entire ring. Like I said, these spots do not make a huge difference to the quality of the match. You can have a great match even without these spots.
Nah, you clearly said that you can have faster paced matches in a 6 sided ring as compared to a four sided ring and yet there is no real proof of it.
You know what is an amazing clusterfuck? MITB, TLC matches( both 3 team and 4 team matches) and they have all taken place in a four sided ring.
It would not hinder them but it would not be much different from having a match in a four sided ring which currently exists in TNA.
So again, no real impact on the matches either. Does a reason even exist to bring back the six sided ring?
You can have fast paced matches in a four sided ring, you've said it every single time. But what you're not letting soak into your quite obvious thick skull is that there's the chance to move between 1 of 6 ring posts in a shorter amount of time, meaning that the possible seconds you might take from the crowds attention is eradicated, meaning that with the difference of seconds, you might have been able to draw someone in just that little bit more. Everyone loves a fast pace, but the quicker you can make it, the more it might be enjoyed.
4. The "It's different!" debate and other assorted opinions.
I never said anything about whose decision it was to bring the four sided ring. It appears to be Hogan and Bischoff's decision but their reasons behind it appear to be better. Hogan compared the six sided ring to a playpen arena, Bischoff called it gimmicky, both of which are very understandable arguements.
Hogan compared it to a Playpen and Bischoff called it gimmicky because they're traditionalists. If the Hexagon had existed from the beginning, they wouldn't be saying this. If Hogan had turned up to TNA and found them using a Four-side ring, he'd call it a travesty, surely. As would Bischoff. But no, because its the other way round, you think that they're obviously right. Other guys in TNA liked it, so obviously it isn't a gimmick, Hogan & Bischoff are just old guys who like it the way it was from the start.
What are Jarrett and Young's reasons for liking the ring over the four sided ring? Nothing. Zilch. Nada. It's just an indication of a preference. Should we bring back the ring based on some guys' preference? Also, it is apparent as to who the bigger names are in wrestling Hogan and Bischoff or Jarrett and Eric Young. You decide whose opinion you would want to hold as more reliable.
Fuck that. Jarrett is the FOUNDER of TNA. If you were talking about wrestling on the whole, I would possibly value Hogan & Bischoff's opinions over Jarrett. But on the subject of TNA, the company Jarrett created, I would hold him above Hogan & Bischoff because its his company. Hogan & Bischoff stroll in and take over, that's how it always has been, but Jarrett is still at the top of that ladder.
The only pro that he has mentioned, as you posted, was that it was different. Well, like I have said Johnny, different is not always better. What makes CZW different from any other promotion in the US is the fact that it is a hardcore promotion. Chikara's outrageous gimmicks and fun quotient make it different from any other organization in the US. How successful are they?
DIFFERENT IS GOOD ENOUGH. I like different, everyone likes fucking different. In this case it was better, because it looks great, it added a different air to it. Sorry, but are you dissing Chikara? Chikara is fucking awesome. So it might not have a huge fanbase, but it still works, doesn't it? If you have ONE huge Wrestling promotion, not every other is going to be as amazing as it. You're so stuck in ways with the WWE that it's impossible to put another company up the top there, especially with their pathetic trademarks and lengths they go to to make sure they're always the best.
Read what Bischoff wrote. He said it takes up more screen space. It is smaller but more difficult to film the matches due to it's shape.
Really? I would think its just as difficult to film around that huge four sided ring they've got going on there. That's bigger than the hexagon and surely it means they might have difficult manoeuvring around it? The hexagon is smaller, it's definitely gonna be easier to move around. Bring it back & we'll find out! I'm sure Bischoff's just bitching again. Nothing new there.
I've managed to show you that the "it's different" arguement is really obselete. AJ has also mentioned some disadvantages of the ring which you have been unable to disprove as of yet. Lance Storm is someone whose opinion is held pretty highly by both fans and wrestlers alike.
You ended abruptly there. Run out of words, or just given up? Bringing back the six sides couldn't be a better idea for TNA right now. It's more exciting, definitely better looking as well. It means that people can remember the old TNA and new fans can see something that they haven't seen before! The people who didn't enjoy four sides will be pleased and the people who might not have been a fan of the six sides can shut up about it.
Rattlesnake, I don't know if it's going to take you a day or not to reply again, so this could be my last reply. If you take for-fucking-ever again, then I'll be in an exam and might not get round to replying, in which case this will be my closing post.
If that's so, bring back the TNA Six-Sided Ring. It's a good idea and if you need help in seeing that, read upwards.
Ok, I mentioned buyrates, didn't need all of this. But thanks for wasting the time to talk to us about the WWE's Buyrates, totally relevant to whether or not a different wrestling company should bring back a ring with six sides.
One of your points in the support of the six sided ring was the fact that it had helped TNA's PPV buys. I showed you the WWE buyrates to show you that the decrease in the PPV buyrates are a problem that has plagued every wrestling company. The six sided ring has nothing to do with the decrease in the number of PPV buys for TNA. Also TV ratings have not decreased. In fact, last year's TV ratings have been stronger than that of any years' so that also proves that the loss of the six sided ring has hardly had any impact on the product.
A mention of the ring! Took you what, four paragraphs? But if the six-sided ring hasn't made PPV buys drop, then why not bring it back? I see no reason not to! It wasn't a massive problem that turned people away. Everyone likes something different and to be honest, I'd take men fighting inside a hexagon over Eric Bischoff and Hulk Hogan anyday because it's DIFFERENT. It's UNIQUE(ish).
Like I said, you can gain this "Uniqueness" that the other companies don't have.
1. Lest you forget, TNA now uses a four sided ring. If the ring six sided ring does not bring any advantage and the four sided ring does not have any diadvantages, then there is no need to bring back the six sided ring. Why fix something that isn't broke?
2. I've already answered the "different" debate too many times by now. It's a carnival attraction at best, like the bearded lady in the circus. It does not help the product in any frickin way and makes TNA look unprofessional because it looks as if they are trying to draw with a gimmick rather than a quality product.
I ask you this. Did WCW use a different ring when they went head to head with WWF in 1996? Nope, they simply put together a great storyline in the form of the NWO which is the way in which most professional promotions look to draw. With the quality of their product and not some silly gimmick.
Also, were TNA ever to bring back Feast or Fired, they have enough Title Belts now that Six ring posts would be beneficial to them! World Title, Tag Titles, X-Dvision Title, Television Title & possibly, TWO Fired. Might make for a very interesting show.
Now, even if I were to accept this as an advantage, tell me how this is an arguement in favour of bringing back the six sided ring permanently?. The FoF match can easily be held at Destination X for which the six sided ring made a return on a temporary basis to, if I may add, less than impressive buys.
Slamanivversary? What? You must mean Slammiversary, at least I hope you bloody well do. What I was saying though is that if PPV's were cheaper in the past, then the prices have been hiked up, that's going to be cause for certain people to not buy ONE Pay-per-view. It's definitely a factor, don't say it isn't.
But Destination X did worse than even similarly priced PPV's. If the six sided ring was such a draw, then maybe it should have at least done as much as Turning Point, which got 9000 buys or Genesis 2012 which got 10,000-12,000 buys. It did not do even that much, let alone get as many as 20,000-25,000 buys that BFG 2011 got. All these PPV's were similarly priced.
I've already provided the information for Turning Point 2011 and BFG 2011. Here are the buys for Genesis 2012.
So yeah, the ring does not draw either. Does a reason exist for bringing it back?
You can have fast paced matches in a four sided ring, you've said it every single time. But what you're not letting soak into your quite obvious thick skull is that there's the chance to move between 1 of 6 ring posts in a shorter amount of time, meaning that the possible seconds you might take from the crowds attention is eradicated, meaning that with the difference of seconds, you might have been able to draw someone in just that little bit more. Everyone loves a fast pace, but the quicker you can make it, the more it might be enjoyed.
This arguement is just ******ed man, in so many ways that I just cannot mention. But even you have mentioned that the difference is in seconds, which is just not relevant. The six sided ring does not even speed up matches to any noticeable degree.
Hogan compared it to a Playpen and Bischoff called it gimmicky because they're traditionalists. If the Hexagon had existed from the beginning, they wouldn't be saying this.If Hogan had turned up to TNA and found them using a Four-side ring, he'd call it a travesty, surely. As would Bischoff. But no, because its the other way round, you think that they're obviously right. Other guys in TNA liked it, so obviously it isn't a gimmick, Hogan & Bischoff are just old guys who like it the way it was from the start.
Meh, you do not understand at all, do you? The six sided ring is just a ring, a structure where the matches are held. The ring is something that has very few utilities in itself. When TNA used a six sided ring instead of a four sided one, it seemed that they were trying to be different just for the sake of being different.
The fact that the four sided ring is the one that has been used throughout history is the reason why the ring looks gimmicky in the first place. This arguement would not have existed in the first place had the six sided ring been the one used from the beginning. If that would have happened, maybe TNA would have tried to draw with a four or even an eight sided ring because they wanted to be different, not because it helped them, but just for the sake of being different. That, being different just for the sake of being different and not because it is something that actually helps your product, is the thing that makes TNA look unprofessional as compared to the big promotions over the years like WWE and WCW and that is exactly what Hogan and Bischoff mean by their statements.
Fuck that. Jarrett is the FOUNDER of TNA. If you were talking about wrestling on the whole, I would possibly value Hogan & Bischoff's opinions over Jarrett. But on the subject of TNA, the company Jarrett created, I would hold him above Hogan & Bischoff because its his company. Hogan & Bischoff stroll in and take over, that's how it always has been, but Jarrett is still at the top of that ladder.
Jarrett may be the founder of TNA but that does not mean that all the rules that he has framed are correct and good for TNA. For a while TNA had a rule which said that titles could change hands on a DQ or a countout which later got reverted to the traditional rules. It got reverted because it was a rather stupid rule.
Also, I am not entirely going on reputation here even though Hogan has the greater reputation among the two. I am also going by the reasons they provided for their statements and Hogan and Bischoff are the only guys who have provided a reason for their arguements unlike Jarrett and Eric Young.
DIFFERENT IS GOOD ENOUGH. I like different, everyone likes fucking different. In this case it was better, because it looks great, it added a different air to it. Sorry, but are you dissing Chikara? Chikara is fucking awesome. So it might not have a huge fanbase, but it still works, doesn't it? If you have ONE huge Wrestling promotion, not every other is going to be as amazing as it. You're so stuck in ways with the WWE that it's impossible to put another company up the top there, especially with their pathetic trademarks and lengths they go to to make sure they're always the best.
Chikara and CZW are something that have a cult following at best. TNA does not want to be that. TNA wants to be a big player in the business and to do that they need to look professional and someone that treats its stories as something much more important than silly gimmicks like the six sided ring.
You ended abruptly there. Run out of words, or just given up? Bringing back the six sides couldn't be a better idea for TNA right now. It's more exciting, definitely better looking as well. It means that people can remember the old TNA and new fans can see something that they haven't seen before! The people who didn't enjoy four sides will be pleased and the people who might not have been a fan of the six sides can shut up about it.
You have been unable to prove that the six sided ring has any advantage over the four sided ring. It does not affect matches, PPV buys, TV ratings or anything. TNA uses a four sided ring and thus does need to change it because the six sided ring simply does not bring anything advantageous to the table. Don't you answer back with it's different again because as I have proved throughout the course of the debate, it is not an advantage of any sort.
One of your points in the support of the six sided ring was the fact that it had helped TNA's PPV buys. I showed you the WWE buyrates to show you that the decrease in the PPV buyrates are a problem that has plagued every wrestling company. The six sided ring has nothing to do with the decrease in the number of PPV buys for TNA. Also TV ratings have not decreased. In fact, last year's TV ratings have been stronger than that of any years' so that also proves that the loss of the six sided ring has hardly had any impact on the product.
Fuck it I'm back in on this. Is the Six-sided ring there though to boost ratings or for TNA/IW to say they've got something that nobody else has? I'm leaning towards the second one.
1. Lest you forget, TNA now uses a four sided ring. If the ring six sided ring does not bring any advantage and the four sided ring does not have any diadvantages, then there is no need to bring back the six sided ring. Why fix something that isn't broke?
2. I've already answered the "different" debate too many times by now. It's a carnival attraction at best, like the bearded lady in the circus. It does not help the product in any frickin way and makes TNA look unprofessional because it looks as if they are trying to draw with a gimmick rather than a quality product.
1. I won't forget they have a four sided ring you've drilled it into my head so fucking much. I think the six sided ring does bring advantages in that fact that it's different, it doesn't make them look generic and it sure as hell makes for more fun in video games.
2. You've answered the different debate, but you calling it a carnival attraction is your mere opinion. What do you matter? You don't. I don't see it as a gimmick more than I see it as something special, that could've been on of the things TNA was known before Hogan blew up a shit storm.
I ask you this. Did WCW use a different ring when they went head to head with WWF in 1996? Nope, they simply put together a great storyline in the form of the NWO which is the way in which most professional promotions look to draw. With the quality of their product and not some silly gimmick.
Fuck off with the word Gimmick. It wasn't a gimmick, it was a uniquity. Where WCW & WWE were going head to head was different. TNA isn't doing this to say they're better than the WWE, they're doing it to show that they've got something that the WWE doesn't have. I guarantee you that if the WWE done this you'd love it because that's what you are. A fanboy.
Now, even if I were to accept this as an advantage, tell me how this is an arguement in favour of bringing back the six sided ring permanently?. The FoF match can easily be held at Destination X for which the six sided ring made a return on a temporary basis to, if I may add, less than impressive buys.
Look at you getting all cutesy with your constant, annoying, repeated words. Why would you have FoF at a Pay Per View where its pretty much X-Division only and FoF is for the whole roster? It was held at Turning Point originally. Having the six sided ring could make the match more interesting if you add in what I mentioned.
I've already provided the information for Turning Point 2011 and BFG 2011. Here are the buys for Genesis 2012.
Yes. It's different, it makes TNA not look like a carbon shitty copy of another wrestling company. The thing is with you Snakey is you so many of the same questions over and over again that I have to answer them again & again. Bit tedious for me, you're lucky I'm replying to you in areas really.
This arguement is just ******ed man, in so many ways that I just cannot mention. But even you have mentioned that the difference is in seconds, which is just not relevant. The six sided ring does not even speed up matches to any noticeable degree.
******ed? Me? Look who can't spell "argument" Seconds are a lot of difference. Seriously, a second can change everything. If a car hits you when one second later, you could've been safe, that matters. Seconds matter and you can lose interest in a matter of them.
Meh, you do not understand at all, do you? The six sided ring is just a ring, a structure where the matches are held. The ring is something that has very few utilities in itself. When TNA used a six sided ring instead of a four sided one, it seemed that they were trying to be different just for the sake of being different.
Not the sake of being different, but being different could've been beneficial to them! People like different. I've said this before, but I'm saying it again, so maybe you might listen.
Jarrett may be the founder of TNA but that does not mean that all the rules that he has framed are correct and good for TNA. For a while TNA had a rule which said that titles could change hands on a DQ or a countout which later got reverted to the traditional rules. It got reverted because it was a rather stupid rule.
That was a rule. This is a Ring. Jarrett had something good going for himself here. The rule might've been stupid, but this ring wasn't. I'm considering, with around 24 Hours to go, running a Poll of people on WZ Forums & see what comes from that. We shall see.
Also, I am not entirely going on reputation here even though Hogan has the greater reputation among the two. I am also going by the reasons they provided for their statements and Hogan and Bischoff are the only guys who have provided a reason for their arguements unlike Jarrett and Eric Young.
Chikara and CZW are something that have a cult following at best. TNA does not want to be that. TNA wants to be a big player in the business and to do that they need to look professional and someone that treats its stories as something much more important than silly gimmicks like the six sided ring.
That last little bit didn't make sense. BUT, you're saying something along the lines of that TNA should write decent stories rather have a six sided ring? If they put the ring back, its not going to detract from the writing abilities of creative. I've probably read you wrong, but you're hard to understand sometimes.
You have been unable to prove that the six sided ring has any advantage over the four sided ring. It does not affect matches, PPV buys, TV ratings or anything. TNA uses a four sided ring and thus does need to change it because the six sided ring simply does not bring anything advantageous to the table. Don't you answer back with it's different again because as I have proved throughout the course of the debate, it is not an advantage of any sort.
Have I really? Bringing the ring back would make people happy. A lot of people want this ring back because they're NOT traditionalists and they like the fact that TNA are different. It might not boost your ratings, it might not give people orgasms, as much as you might want it to, but its a damn sight more interesting than seeing a four sided ring on every fucking wrestling show we all watch.
Oh you use text speak? Please continue to tell us how cool you are.
I don't know if I'm concluding here because of your reply speed. I may or may not be, who knows?! Blame it on the Rattlesnake. But if not, you have my arguments, that's all you can now go on.
1. Being different is not an advantage in itself.
Fuck it I'm back in on this. Is the Six-sided ring there though to boost ratings or for TNA/IW to say they've got something that nobody else has? I'm leaning towards the second one.
I think the six sided ring does bring advantages in that fact that it's different, it doesn't make them look generic and it sure as hell makes for more fun in video games.
Yes. It's different, it makes TNA not look like a carbon shitty copy of another wrestling company.
Not the sake of being different, but being different could've been beneficial to them! People like different.
Have I really? Bringing the ring back would make people happy. A lot of people want this ring back because they're NOT traditionalists and they like the fact that TNA are different. It might not boost your ratings, it might not give people orgasms, as much as you might want it to, but its a damn sight more interesting than seeing a four sided ring on every fucking wrestling show we all watch.
I swear if I was drinking for every single time you have used the word "different" in this last reply of yours, I would have been dead by now.
But coming back to the point, you have admitted during the course of the debate that being different does not really contribute to the PPV buys or ratings. Actually, there was no other choice because it is something that I have proved comprehensively over the course of this debate. If it does not benefit the product in any way then how is it an advantage? Being different is not an advantage in itself, being better is, and different does not mean better. Please explain how different is better and please do not go with "they have something no one else has" because that is just another way of saying that it is different. You have given us no proof to suggest that a different ring is better because frankly no proof exists.
You say that people would like seeing the six sided ring. Give me some FUCKING proof man. Fewer people bought Destination X than most other PPV's in a four sided ring in 2011. The TV ratings for TNA, in a four sided ring, are higher in 2011 than they have ever been in TNA history. All these are an indication of what people like and what people do not and this suggests to me that the six sided ring was not as hot among the fans as you tell me it was.
I am asking you the same questions again because you have only one point. That being that the six sided ring is different. I am asking you to explain how diferent is beneficial and frankly, you have been unable to do so. You just keep repeating that it's different hoping that the word different will somehow convince the judges to see your way.
2. Feast or Fired, again!?
Look at you getting all cutesy with your constant, annoying, repeated words. Why would you have FoF at a Pay Per View where its pretty much X-Division only and FoF is for the whole roster? It was held at Turning Point originally. Having the six sided ring could make the match more interesting if you add in what I mentioned.
Just an example to explain that you do not need to bring back the ring for ONE FUCKING MATCH. Seriously, your argument for the return of the six sided ring on a permanent basis is a match that last happened almost two and a half years ago and something which takes place at most twice a year. Hell, it can happen on a special edition of iMPACT Wrestling if it is so important to have that match. But since it hasn't happened for two years now, I doubt if it will happen.
3. Wait, what do we have here?
Seconds are a lot of difference. Seriously, a second can change everything. If a car hits you when one second later, you could've been safe, that matters. Seconds matter and you can lose interest in a matter of them.
Yes, because wrestling inside a six sided ring instead of a four sided ring makes as much difference to wrestling as being being hit by a car or not to your life.
Seriously, if the six sided ring speeds up any match to any noticeable degree, then give us some proof of it. If it does not, it doesn't matter.
4. It's damn well a gimmick.
Fuck off with the word Gimmick. It wasn't a gimmick, it was a uniquity. Where WCW & WWE were going head to head was different. TNA isn't doing this to say they're better than the WWE, they're doing it to show that they've got something that the WWE doesn't have. I guarantee you that if the WWE done this you'd love it because that's what you are. A fanboy.
Oh, it's damn well a gimmick. Not only because Bischoff, Hogan and Lance Storm say so but because you have been unable to prove otherwise.
A gimmick is defined as an unusual( synonyms: unique, different) and unnecessary whose purpose is to draw attention. You yourself have said that it is unusual and you have been unable to prove that it is neccesary for the product in any way.
Seriously, the ring does not affect matches nor does it help draw. It has no advantages over a four sided ring. TNA are using a four sided ring and doing rather well for themselves. You do not fix what ain't broke especially when the "fix" is something like the six sided ring. Unnecessary and of no advantage.
HOLY UNDER 24 HOURS BATMAN. Welcome back to the land of the living Snakey. You keep drinking on those differents. Different, different, different, different.
But coming back to the point, you have admitted during the course of the debate that being different does not really contribute to the PPV buys or ratings. Actually, there was no other choice because it is something that I have proved comprehensively over the course of this debate. If it does not benefit the product in any way then how is it an advantage? Being different is not an advantage in itself, being better is, and different does not mean better. Please explain how different is better and please do not go with "they have something no one else has" because that is just another way of saying that it is different. You have given us no proof to suggest that a different ring is better because frankly no proof exists.
Cool, you've proved that PPV numbers have deflated. Go find the debate that wants that.
You say that people would like seeing the six sided ring. Give me some FUCKING proof man. Fewer people bought Destination X than most other PPV's in a four sided ring in 2011. The TV ratings for TNA, in a four sided ring, are higher in 2011 than they have ever been in TNA history. All these are an indication of what people like and what people do not and this suggests to me that the six sided ring was not as hot among the fans as you tell me it was.
http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=213280 - Someone say they wanted proof? The opening posts from our own WZ Posters say they want it back. Yes there are some no's in there and also a penis, but it's proof that people DO want the six sides back in TNA. Ask for proof, you will get it.
They are? So when TNA got 60,000 PPV Buys in a six-sided ring, they were higher than the PPV Buyrates in 2011? Or are you not making sense again? I told you about this! You've gotta make sense to get a correct reply!
I am asking you the same questions again because you have only one point. That being that the six sided ring is different. I am asking you to explain how diferent is beneficial and frankly, you have been unable to do so. You just keep repeating that it's different hoping that the word different will somehow convince the judges to see your way.
Just an example to explain that you do not need to bring back the ring for ONE FUCKING MATCH. Seriously, your argument for the return of the six sided ring on a permanent basis is a match that last happened almost two and a half years ago and something which takes place at most twice a year. Hell, it can happen on a special edition of iMPACT Wrestling if it is so important to have that match. But since it hasn't happened for two years now, I doubt if it will happen.
I never said it was important to have the match. I said, it would be cool if it was held in a six sided ring. Then we'd also see the Six Sides of Steel match make a return, because that sounds a LOT cooler than a Cage Match. Also, have we seen the Terrordome take place since TNA switched to a four side ring? I don't think we have and that's because of how difficult it is to get something round like that around the square shape. You wouldn't be able to fit it in rightly without pushing back the barriers a bit, thus losing a row of seats, thus losing out on fans, thus losing out on money. And I'm SURE that TNA would be able to think of some strange match that incorporates the use of six sides. Maybe something explodes, it's TNA after all.
Yes, because wrestling inside a six sided ring instead of a four sided ring makes as much difference to wrestling as being being hit by a car or not to your life.
Well, shall we put you in front of a moving car, see what happens?
4. It's damn well a gimmick..... lolno
Oh, it's damn well a gimmick. Not only because Bischoff, Hogan and Lance Storm say so but because you have been unable to prove otherwise.
A gimmick is defined as an unusual( synonyms: unique, different) and unnecessary whose purpose is to draw attention. You yourself have said that it is unusual and you have been unable to prove that it is neccesary for the product in any way.
That's the only title I left in because it made me laugh how you repeated yourself so soon. Just because Bischoff, Hogan & Storm say so, it doesn't mean they're right. Hogan apparently was once asked to join Metallica. That turned out be a lie. It's not a gimmick. The gimmick here is you thinking you're so amazing, when you're really not. The four sided ring may be the traditional ring, but we see it everywhere. Six sides however, we don't see at all now because TNA went mainstream on their ring. If its drawing attention, THAT'S A GOOD THING! The more attention the better.
Let TNA bring their six sides back to Television permanently, get all the attention they need and then it'll get them viewing. You say it's for attention, YET you then say it doesn't affect the ratings... Strange that eh?
Look, TNA's six sided ring for me was one of the coolest things they had going. That and the fact they were still pretty hardcore and wild. They're still wild & hardcore, but the ring's missing. I love that ring and so do many others. It should be brought back and that's that.
This will be my last post now. So I'm wrapping it all up by saying that Rattlesnake, you've been one hell of a debate, but that ring needs to come back & I and others hope it does.
Cool, you've proved that PPV numbers have deflated. Go find the debate that wants that.
They are? So when TNA got 60,000 PPV Buys in a six-sided ring, they were higher than the PPV Buyrates in 2011? Or are you not making sense again? I told you about this! You've gotta make sense to get a correct reply!
Yeah, you talk about me making sense but you are not making any yourself. You agree with the fact that I have successfully proven that PPV buyrates have deflated for all wrestling companies and then a line or two later you bring up TNA doing more buys in a six sided ring. I have already proved why the buyrates are low in 2011. Because, as I have proven, it is a universal problem stemming from increasing PPV prices, the number of PPV's and just a lack of interest in wrestling. The reason is not the six sided ring and so far you have given us no reason to believe that that is the case.
http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=213280 - Someone say they wanted proof? The opening posts from our own WZ Posters say they want it back. Yes there are some no's in there and also a penis, but it's proof that people DO want the six sides back in TNA. Ask for proof, you will get it.
Things would have been easier had you also made a poll but most people have said no. There are 19 people who have said no while 6 have said yes. Sorry man but six people on a wrestling forum are no reason to bring back the ring. The Destination X 2011 buyrate proves along with this thread that you just made that there is no demand for a six sided ring these days.
I never said it was important to have the match. I said, it would be cool if it was held in a six sided ring. Then we'd also see the Six Sides of Steel match make a return, because that sounds a LOT cooler than a Cage Match. Also, have we seen the Terrordome take place since TNA switched to a four side ring? I don't think we have and that's because of how difficult it is to get something round like that around the square shape. You wouldn't be able to fit it in rightly without pushing back the barriers a bit, thus losing a row of seats, thus losing out on fans, thus losing out on money. And I'm SURE that TNA would be able to think of some strange match that incorporates the use of six sides. Maybe something explodes, it's TNA after all.
Lol. Do you know that the Terrordome or the Steel asylum, as it is called these days in TNA, first took place in WCW in a four sided ring? It was called the Thundercage. TNA and particularily AAA have changed the cage somewhat to allow escape from it at the top unlike what was the case at WCW, but no change has been brought about due to the structure of the ring. The chane was brought about to change the rules of the match. Here I will show you the video.
[YOUTUBE]O5X7v4dLsI4[/YOUTUBE]
Anyways, how do you know that we no longer have steel asylum matches in TNA? As I just showed, it is very much possible inside a four sided ring. Maybe, it is no longer held because there is just no need for this match.
You had said it for the FoF match and I will repeat it in case of the Steel Asylum match. It is very much possible to have them in a four sided ring. But either way, giving examples of gimmick matches that have happened very few times is not a solid arguement in favor of the return of the ring permanently, which is what we are arguing here.
That's the only title I left in because it made me laugh how you repeated yourself so soon. Just because Bischoff, Hogan & Storm say so, it doesn't mean they're right. Hogan apparently was once asked to join Metallica. That turned out be a lie. It's not a gimmick. The gimmick here is you thinking you're so amazing, when you're really not. The four sided ring may be the traditional ring, but we see it everywhere. Six sides however, we don't see at all now because TNA went mainstream on their ring. If its drawing attention, THAT'S A GOOD THING! The more attention the better
Hogan does say some outrageous to promote himself but unless he invented the four sided ring, which he did not, there is nothing to suggest tht he has some ulterior motive against the six sided ring. His comments in this regard can be taken seriously because it isn't something that involves his own name.
And yes, that bolded part is the very definition of what a gimmick is. It was different just for the sake of being something different. It did not help the product and was therefore unnecessary.
And I said, it's purpose was to draw attention, not that it drew attention anymore. That is because it is like an oddity at the circus, like a two headed man or something. It draws attention initially but you do not even notice it after you have seen it a few hundreds of times. If you need proof of it NOT drawing attention anymore, look at:
1. The thread that you made and posted here asking if anyone wanted the six sided ring back.
2. Destination X PPV buys
3. TV ratings of TNA in 2011 in a four sided ring.
Clarity of debate -Good opening posts by both debaters, but like Funkay said, Rattle was a little more coherent so he gets the point here.
Punctuality - Rattlesnake was late a few times so he loses the points.
Informative - Both men brought in information and the videos were nice as well. I thought the that Rattle made better use of the info he brought in and did a great job here.
Persuasion -Aside from the thread Funkay mentioned, I thought that CP's points didn't really hold up. For example, he brought in the fast paced matches in the 6 sided ring but Rattle was able to easily show that you can do the same in a 4 sided ring. Rattlesnake did a better job of convincing me here so he wins this point in my eyes.
Clarity - Going with Rattlesnake on this one. Fantastical opener, and his continued spacing throughout was very pleasing to my eyes.
Point - The Rattlesnake
Punctuation - Rattlesnake happened to be late a few times.
Point - CP Munk
Informative - I liked Rattlesnake's use of videos and ratings, WITH LINKS!
Point - The Rattlesnake
Persuasion - One huge thing backfired was Munk's thread. Was a stinker, though an interesting tactic. I commend him for trying. Rattlesnake did a good job convincing me, and the quotes from wrestlers was one of the biggest reasons.
Points - The Rattlesnake
CH David scores this The Rattlesnake 4, CP Munk 1.
Even if CP Munk gets a perfect score from Nate, he cannot win this bracket. Therefore, Rattlesnake has clinched his defeat over CP Munk by a score of 13-2. He will move onto Loser's bracket #24.
Unfortunately, CP Munk, you have been eliminated from this year's tournament. Thank you for your efforts.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
. Like I said, these spots do not make a huge difference to the quality of the match. You can have a great match even without these spots.
