Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
You can't hold against TNA an imaginary wrestling audience that is not there these days. That's simply ridiculous to do.
It says your opinion on quality is quite skewed and unreliable. Ring of Honor is atrocious, and the only people who "like" Ring of Honor do so simply because it makes them think they are better wrestling fans, not because they actually enjoy the product more.
Yeah...and I guess it was just a coincidence they had all the biggest draws in wrestling history on the same show, AND the most revolutionary angle in wrestling history, all at the same time. Coincidence...right?
See, that's the mistake so many people make. Those fans AREN'T there anymore. Wrestling has ALWAYS traditionally lost fans from the ages of 20-25. Wrestling's target audience has always been under the age of 25. Those fans from ten years ago are NOT there anymore. You can't get back fans that don't want to be fans anymore.Maybe they would be there if wrestling shows, such as TNA Impact, held the same quality and entertainment as they did when those fans were watching. They didn't disappear off the face of the earth, they're merely not interested in what's being offered right now.
Slyfox696. That's who I am.Who are you to tell me my opinion's are skewed and unreliable?
How is my opinion skewed when TNA is far more enjoyable than ROH? And that's not just my opinion, that's the opinion of many more wrestling fans. How do I know this? Because TNA is on national TV with monthly live PPVs, and ROH gets 36 Canadian PPV buys for one of their shows, which is the reason carriers dropped them in Canada.That's a purely ignorant comment. Perhaps your opinion is skewed and unreliable because you seem fine with the wrestling that is being given to us currently by products like TNA, which all those "imaginary wrestling" fans who are no longer watching are not fine with because they're not watching wrestling anymore.
No, the stereotypes about the fans of Ring of Honor are quite true. Watch any ROH show, and at any given show, you'll find no less than 80% of the fans who consider themselves "smart" to the business, and desperately want everyone else to think they are "smart".And the stereotypes about Ring of Honor fans are as ignorant as the stereotypes about Vince Russo, etc. I'm not a huge fan of Ring of Honor at all, but I do enjoy some of the talent and the things they do, just as I enjoy some of the talent TNA has. I don't think I'm a better wrestling fan then anyone, I have my views and I have my tastes just as you do.
Not really. Because viewership supports my statement. The only thing you can base your statement on is your personal preference. And if you want to talk about devoid of credibility, let's start when someone tries to say the product that fewer people watch and care about is more entertaining than the product that is on national television and doing monthly live PPVs.You telling me my opinion is skewed and unreliable, as if your opinion on what quality wrestling is is "fact" and "right" makes your entire argument devoid of any credibility.
AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAActually, you obviously missed when I said that they went from 2's to 3's in their first year.. as the nWo angle didn't begin until the middle of 1996 which was a year and a half later. They were in the 3's when the nWo began.
Wrestling doesn't draw on the undercard, and never has.Sure, they had some of the biggest draws in wrestling history but it was also because of the amazing and revolutionary Cruiserweight division they had, a strong mid-card that set up to the main events.
And the Attitude Era completely blows your statement out of the water. In 1998 and 1999, the WWF sucked hardcore, outside of the main-event scene. You had Goldust running around like a BDSM freak, D'Lo Brown buying tampons for PMS, a vampire drinking blood, a group who literally called themselves the job squad, and a whole host of other garbage. The only reason Attitude Era was successful was because Austin and The Rock led the main-event scene and were damn entertaining.People seem to forget the entire product has to be good, not just the top draws, and that's something TNA can learn from and improve, is it not? Especially since even their main events aren't bringing in ratings. But people are too busy making excuses instead of learning and improving by looking at the past successes and mistakes of those before them.
I think Slyfox said something about ROH being atrocious and people only liking it to make them feel like better wrestling fans. I think there are elements of truth to this. You hear about ROH and all these top level matches that they have put on and you feel like you should like it but when you do watch it, you dont feel sucked in, you have to really sit yourself down to watch it. A buddy of mine leant me three DVDs and i have watched them all, but there were certain parts i had to really try my best to get through. Then again there are some matches and talents that are genuinely incredible, Nigel McGuiness and Bryan Danielson bore me, Austin Aries and Delirious entertain me. I also like the Briscoe Brothers and think they could draw in a big company.
HOWEVER... A friend of mine is a life-long WWE guy, and TNA was like this to him. I tell him about how good AJ Styles and Samoa Joe are and he feels like he should be watching them, but when he tunes in and sees some of stuff he doesnt like it. He has enjoyed a few choice matches i've shown him but in general he cant get into it like he can WWE.
I feel this is a good assessment of ROH. Bits and pieces are worth checking out but on the whole it doesnt even compare to the top two companies.
And I feel the need to point out to you that AJ Styles was working in TNA from Day 1, and was working in WCW long before he was working in ROH. Also, I would like to point out to you that Samoa Joe may have caught TNA's attention in ROH, but it was TNA that made him a wrestling name, not ROH.I do feel the need to point out that AJ Styles and Samoe Joe both came from Ring of Honor and I think any great match they've had in TNA can be rivaled by one of their matches in Ring of Honor. The Briscoes are just flashy move after flashy move, they'd need some serious fine tuning in my mind to be really good in a bigger promotion.
How is my opinion skewed when TNA is far more enjoyable than ROH? And that's not just my opinion, that's the opinion of many more wrestling fans. How do I know this? Because TNA is on national TV with monthly live PPVs, and ROH gets 36 Canadian PPV buys for one of their shows, which is the reason carriers dropped them in Canada.
How do I know TNA is more entertaining? Because more people are entertained by it. How do I know more people are entertained by it? Because more people want to watch it.
No, the stereotypes about the fans of Ring of Honor are quite true. Watch any ROH show, and at any given show, you'll find no less than 80% of the fans who consider themselves "smart" to the business, and desperately want everyone else to think they are "smart".
And the Attitude Era completely blows your statement out of the water. In 1998 and 1999, the WWF sucked hardcore, outside of the main-event scene. You had Goldust running around like a BDSM freak, D'Lo Brown buying tampons for PMS, a vampire drinking blood, a group who literally called themselves the job squad, and a whole host of other garbage. The only reason Attitude Era was successful was because Austin and The Rock led the main-event scene and were damn entertaining.
Not really.Seriously, you're an idiot, I have to say.
I don't believe I was the one to bring up Ring of Honor, YOU were.You try to make an argument before about how you can't compare TNA to WWE or WCW, because they're entirely different entities who are on entirely different levels. Then you go on to try to compare TNA to Ring of Honor to prove a point?
Irony.Hypocrit.
I don't understand your point here. You said ROH was more entertaining and I said that made your opinion skewed and unreliable. It's skewed and unreliable, because even though it may appeal to you more, that doesn't mean it's more entertaining.TNA's a nationally televised company, with a big business financing them, with huge stars compared to Ring of Honor. What's your point? Ring of Honor doesn't have any huge stars, and their main stars were stolen by TNA who have used them for their own success.. what's your point? TNA banned their talent from performing on Ring of Honor once Ring of Honor got a ppv deal, why do you think that is? Your logic's flawed.
Precisely. And, those "fans" who want people to think they are smart, are the same ones that criticize the product. And yet, for all their criticisms, it seems as if TNA is doing just fine, now doesn't it?Oh, you mean like the fans in TNA that do the same?
You really should learn to read and understand the whole context of my statement. What I said was that in 1998 and 1999, which was when the WWF was drawing their highest ratings, the midcard was crap, and the only reason ratings were so high was because of the main-event scene, which was led by Austin and Rock.Are you kidding me? You just proved to me how completely devoid of any intelligence I was actually thinking you did have. You almost had me there. The Attitude Era only had Austin and the Rock?... not the Undertaker, Mankind, Kane, DeGeneration X (that would be Triple H, Shawn Michaels and even the New Age Outlaws back in their day), Edge & Christian, the Hardyz, the Dudley Boyz, Kurt Angle.. nor eventually Chris Jericho, Big Show, all of the Radicalz. Good job.
Great. Who cares?WCW was so strong in their hayday, not only because of the nWo but because they had guys like Chris Benoit, Chris Jericho, Dean Malenko, all the Mexican wrestlers, putting on unbelievable matches in the mid-cards to lead up to the main event draws.
There are many reasons. Eric Bischoff was not creative and booked poorly, the promotion was run poorly from a wrestling standpoint, the Time Warner merger, and several other things.Why do you think WCW started to deterorate and continued to when the nWo storyline eventually got stale and died and all those great draws like Hulk Hogan were still there, but all that mid-card talent had left and went to the WWF?
No they didn't. They got better and better with Austin and the Rock. Don't believe me? See what happened to ratings and business in general when those two guys left.The WWF just got better and better with the mid-card talent WCW wasted.
Nope, not really true at all. Main-event wrestlers are what draw fans, not undercard workers. This isn't rocket science, it's just fact.A good wrestling product has something that draws the fans in from the bottom of the card all the way to the top, otherwise people won't watch and sit through the product to get to the main event, they'll tune out long before hand.
Props to SlyFox for using logic and sound argument to make the strongest points. He nailed it. Sadly, no matter how effectively he debates, few people on the Internet have the decency to engage with an alternative viewpoint.
TNA is and has been fighting a problem with perception. WCW had the same problem. It seems that any big company that dare try to show a level of ambition is targeted by the WWE zealots. Basically, there are a lot of people who don't want TNA to succeed. The way the wrestling media generally report about TNA is slanted and unfair. It's so transparent.
So, TNA is battling all these perceptions. The media choose to focus on and exaggerate TNA's flaws - the "horrible morale", the "terrible buyrates" etc. They also want to characterize TNA as a clueless company, rather than a progressive company which (like EVERY company) has made some mistakes in its short life. A company which has grown as much as TNA in six years cannot be clueless. They have made great strides but, rather than acknowledging that, the critics try to paint this gloomy picture of a failing company.
I would guess that most of the online critics just jump on the anti-TNA bandwagon because it's easier to do that than to use your own judgment. There doesn't seem to be a lot of original thought online. There are so many regurgitated opinions. If Meltzer was spinning TNA in positive ways and highlighting the positives, I'm confident a lot of the sheep would be echoing the same sentiments.
It takes courage to defend your enjoyment of TNA online! In doing so, I've encountered some vitriol, had my intelligence and honesty questioned and basically been called all sorts of names. For admitting I like a wrestling product?! Strangely, I know a lot of people IN THE REAL WORLD who really do enjoy TNA. Online, it's becoming the equivalent of admitting you like to cross-dress!
Ultimately, there's too much negativity online generally. Internet fans are often the most crticial and DON'T necessarily reflect the views of the casual viewers. That's why they are often ridiculed.
Honestly, I've watched some incredible movies and TV shows, yet when I check some reviews online there's at least one guy complaining (in the most negative way possible) about how much it "sucked" and how the writer is a "stupid hack!!" etc etc. The Internet is a terrific resource, but in some places it has attracted geeky losers who just want to vent their frustrations which, deep down, have nothing to do with the product they are reviewing and more to do with their own life frustrations!
Not really.
I don't believe I was the one to bring up Ring of Honor, YOU were.
I don't understand your point here. You said ROH was more entertaining and I said that made your opinion skewed and unreliable. It's skewed and unreliable, because even though it may appeal to you more, that doesn't mean it's more entertaining.
Precisely. And, those "fans" who want people to think they are smart, are the same ones that criticize the product. And yet, for all their criticisms, it seems as if TNA is doing just fine, now doesn't it?
You really should learn to read and understand the whole context of my statement. What I said was that in 1998 and 1999, which was when the WWF was drawing their highest ratings, the midcard was crap, and the only reason ratings were so high was because of the main-event scene, which was led by Austin and Rock.
Those guys were not what sold tickets, or made people watch. It was the nWo storyline that did. This isn't even debatable, it's fact. Main-eventers draw, not small guy undercard workers.
What?And you tried to use Ring of Honor as an absurd argument that lacked logic.
And, that makes your opinion skewed and unreliable. Like I said earlier.I said Ring of Honor is more entertaining to me.
You have no point here.
And yet, their revenue is increasing, their profit is increasing, and their exposure is increasing.All a matter of perspective since their ratings have been falling and there's no proof their ppv buy rates are improving.
Huh? No, those names didn't carry the product, and the midcard sucked. You had stupid pointless angles going on, that were raunchy for the sake of raunchy.You really should read and understand. Most of those names were there, in the mid-card, during that time and carried the product along with Austin and Rock just fine.
Overall ratings are determined by number of viewers who watch the show. And if a show promotes a strong main-event that people want to see, then the show gets a better rating. That's why Raw gets a 3.5 TV rating, and ECW gets a 1.2 TV rating. Because Raw has the main-eventers, and ECW has all undercard workers.Are overall ratings determined by one segment or main event match of an entire two hour show?
Yes. They do for boxing, they do for MMA, and they have always done it for wrestling.Do you think people will buy ppvs for one main event when the entire rest of the show is nobody's who are unwatchable?
Why? D2D had a terrible main-event.Sly, obviously you must've ordered December To Dismember 06 and enjoyed it with that logic.
It helps, but not necessary if you have a main-event people want to see. Take Starrcade '97. Do you REALLY think anyone bought that PPV for any reason other than to see Sting vs. Hogan?A card has to be interesting throughout if anyone is going to buy it.
So? MMA promotes on the strength of one or two fights, not a whole card.And boxing is getting it's ass kicked by MMA right now.
What is your role in TNA anyways? I don'T want to piss you of or anything but it seem like you don'T really know anything that'S going on in TNA as far as PPV buys and ratings and all the other financial stuff. So if you could please tell us what's your role in TNA is, i'm pretty sure that us, internet fans, could have a intelligent discussion about TNA after.
I understand what you're saying, but those things were entertaining based more off of their shock factor, and the "push the envelope" factor than they were because the angles themselves were inherently entertaining.slyfox,
i will have to disagree with you on your point about wwe attitude era mid card. i think the midcard is what defined the attitude era. sure, there was alot of whacky garbage going on back then, but that's what creates water cooler talk. mark henry sleeping with his sister, val venis getting his dick chopped off, sable half nude, etc.... mind you the top of the card drew the ppv buyrates, but when you turn on a wrestling show and a vampire is drinking blood, it made it hard to change the channel. i don't think wwe's ratings would have been as high if you had benoit wrestling eddie for twenty minutes on a show where stone cold made mcmahon piss his pants.
There are plenty. I know the forums on the prowrestling.com have posted some of the article, I know that the PWR forums have posted it. There are several different forums.what other forums post my articles?
as of right now i am an agent(producer). for example, mcmg will wrestle rock n rave. i give the talent the finish and the bullet points of the match. they lay it out and come to me with what they've got. if it sounds like it works within their time constrictions, i'll write down specific spots and then during the match i'm in the production truck and i call shots to the director. sometimes i have ideas for specific spots during the match which the talent will use. other times we'll all lay the match out together. i also will get with talent during the day and give constructive criticism. sometimes i'll give creative some ideas, also. and other times i'll help russo produce backstage vignettes. myself, pat kenney, jim cornette and scott d'amore all do the same job. d'amore is pretty much recognized as the best agent, and has done excellent work with the girls.