The Debater's League Preseason: Tenta VS. Ferbian

[Tenta]

Hello, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to what I've thrown down to be the Out of Conference Exhibition match between Myself and Ferbian. This serves as a demonstration. As some of you may or may not be aware, August 1st is the beginning date for the 4th Wrestlezone Debater's League. Last year, D-Man won the competition, and has chosen to resurrect the league, for now 22 competitors have stepped up to the challenge, and decided to face one another, in a battle for supremacy. However, I'm impatient, and have decided I would rather not wait until August 1st. Quite Simply, I want to do this now. Thus, Ferbian has accepted my challenge to a Non-Conference matchup. This will be merely a demonstration, and will only have one judge, that being Dave, moderator of the WWE Section.

I'm going to put this in bold, because everybody loves to read bold.

Please, Do Not Attempt To Post In This Thread, As It's Meant To Be A Debate Between Myself and Ferbian. Not that your opinion doesn't matter, but this is meant to be a one on one battle, with an unbiased, impartial judge waiting to decide the outcome. If you would like to get in on the debating action, you have a chance in the Debater's League sub-forum, in the Alternates Section. Otherwise, this thread was created for the sole purpose of Ferbian, Dave, and I to post in. This is a one on one battle, to be judged by Dave. We appreciate your enthusiasm, but politely request that this be a battle between myself and Ferbian. Thank you ahead of time for your kind cooperation.​

Now that we've gotten that cleared out of the way, it's time to get the orders from Dave himself.

Given the respective situations of both the WWE and TNA, which company is better suited for potential growth in the next 5-10 years.

Tenta, as you are the home debater, you may choose who shall post first, and the decision as to which side you are arguing.

Thank you Dave, and because of this, I'm going to choose myself to take the opening post, as well as the side of TNA. I shall be arguing that TNA has more room for potential growth than the WWE. However, before I begin in earnest to describe my stance, I’d first like us to decide exactly what is meant by the term “Potential Growth”. This may sound rather asinine, however, I’ve deemed it very important.

Potential: Capable of Being, or Becoming. Expressing a realistic possibility.

Growth: the act or process, or a manner of growing; development; gradual increase.

Thus, I think we're all aware of what "Potential Growth" Stands for. It is, in earnest, the possibility for expanding, exponential development, or a gradual increase, based on sheer possibility. I want to get this out of the way, and express, first and foremost, that while the WWE has spent decades at the helm of the wrestling world, they have already met an expansion the likes of which has already made them a worldwide name. Worldwide, they are seen as the provider of "Sports Entertainment", and consequentially, have made themselves the established product in wrestling.

You see the underlined portion of the above paragraph? The key word amongst all of what I've written is, "Already". The WWE has had its chance to become a household name the world over. With markets in Mexico, Japan, and the like, the WWE doesn't really have much room to "potentially" grow. Simply put, they are the established name in professional wrestling, and whether my partner likes to admit it or not, there's realistically little room for expansion of what many have called, "Vince's Empire". He already has set up a product in which does National Tours, and has performed in all of the most famous arenas across the world. 93,000 (allegedly) in the Pontiac Silverdome? Been there, done that. Performing in front of Wembley Stadium? It's been done before. Realistically, what is there left for the WWE to perform, in which they haven't? Have they not, by the year of 2010, already lived up to the portion of potential? Hell, for that matter, if we want to be honest, Vince McMahon has done even more than people have predicted. TNA, within eight years, has already become a national commodity, and has appealed to the masses. However, what shouldn't be lost upon our audience today is the fact that TNA hasn't even begun to explore the world outside the Impact Zone. I’ve said this before, and I don’t mean to misrepresent the company in doing this, but TNA now amounts to nothing more than a Glorified Territory. Allow me to explain myself; While TNA has made ventures out to new, exciting areas such as New York, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, all major wrestling markets, TNA has spent a good portion of their existence complacent to staying close to the Impact’s comfortable walls at Soundstage 21 in Universal Studios, Florida. Since 2006, Impact has recorded most, if not all, of their weekly programs within Orlando, Florida, and have been content in doing so. As a matter of fact, do you know when the first TNA Pay Per View was produced outside the Impact Zone? It was in 2006, two years after they began Monthly Three Hour Pay Per View Productions. As a matter of fact, of all the Pay Per Views of TNA’s, which account for 71 total, 53 have been done in The Impact Zone. That is roughly three quarters of the Pay Per Views done live, in a venue that only fills up about 1,300 people, at the most. When TNA ventures out of these venues, they typically do much better, and while ranging from 3,500 to about 4,000 people isn’t astronomical, it shows me that there’s plenty of room for growth, in terms of putting on events outside the Impact Zone. Again, the fact that they are, pretty much, a territory, yet everyone assumes that they are a national company should tell you plenty about how far TNA has come. Eventually, the hope is that TNA, within 6-7 years, will be touring nationally, and the Impact Zone would be a thing of the past. Consider that for a second; that would be like the WWE producing all of their shows at Bridgeport Connecticut’s Harbor Yard, and even then the analogy doesn’t fit, as Harbor Yard can easily seat between 8,000-9000 for a Wrestling Event. At this point, The WWE has the America Market cornered and little room for expansion. TNA can easily grow out their fan base across the country, and become a real national player in the business.

Even to some extent, has the World Market, as well. Though, it’s only fair to point out that TNA pulls typically higher ratings in England, and one of their programs, Xplosion, has been running in England for months. The potential in this market, frankly, can’t be denied. Because the WWE is part of a package in which English have to pay extra for the channel the WWE can be found on, Sky Sports. As of this moment, Sky Sports and the WWE have agreed to a new five year extension, meaning that while the WWE is on programming, that they are binded to this five year marriage with Sky Sports, at least until 2014, as the deal was signed in 2009. Less homes purchased in means, as you can guess, fewer eyeballs. Why pay for a program when you can another, similar product on a channel that’s free? Impact is something that currently plays on Bravo, and there have been rumblings that TNA may be in negotiations to appear on ESPN. It’s all very tentative, but at the least, TNA appears on Bravo, in Prime Time, on a basic Cable Channel. Before, TNA hasn’t had the funds to appear in England, but this June, TNA has made the trip over the pond, to further expand their burgeoning name to the Europeans. It may in fact be possible that by 2014, which is well within the date of which we’re debating, that TNA may be as recognizable a name in most countries than in the WWE. The shows are said to be well received and popular, which is much better than a program one could say is only being received by a rare few, such as the WWE.

Also, TNA has yet to actually place an identity to its program to the national public, but has done so recently, with the signing of some of the greatest legends in the history of wrestling. Say what you will about the signings of Hogan, Sting, Flair, and the like, but they are good for undeniable reason; Name recognition. Simply put, adding a name like Hogan can’t even be accounted for how important it is to TNA’s national recognition. If there’s one wrestler that is identifiable with professional wrestling, it has to be Hulk Hogan. If you were to ask the public for a second name, I’m pretty sure you’ll find a good population that name Ric Flair. Some will name Mick Foley, some will name Sting, but you get my point. TNA had done an effective job in signing names to bring positive publicity to their program. The adding of these names can help a brand expand to national levels in years, and even after they’re gone, the rub in which they provide wrestlers like AJ Styles, Samoa Joe, and the like will do wonders for how those names will be viewed in the public. TNA has yet to even have a chance to expand its shows on a national level consistently, and the minute its able to do so on a weekly basis, wrestlers will find fame and fortune the likes of which they’ve never seen before. The effective combination of name recognition, combined with the workers of the company to keep shows entertaining and effective, will provide a show which can potentially catch fire.

Look, folks, it’s absolutely simple; The WWE has little room for growth anyway, as they’ve already reached as high in the public as they’ll get. The WWE is still trying to fight off the negative stigma behind the Chris Benoit double murder-suicide. They have, and had, their time as the big dog in the professional wrestling market, and have had the chance to grow and expand already, and have done so. The WWE seems insistent that for the next generation, the status quo is absolutely acceptable, and they are satisfied resting on their loins, at the moment. Admittedly, they could possibly put TNA out of business now if they really wanted to, but have become content with the market they’ve created. TNA, on the other hand, has nowhere to go but up. They’ve yet to even have a chance to expand their name on a national level, the same way the WWE has. They’ve yet to reach the climax of their business, as the WWE has. TNA has all the chance, and ability, to create a further name in the national market, which they admittedly aren’t now. The WWE has very little to expand on; TNA has every possible way to expand, on a national and international level.

 

[Ferbian]

First off, I thank you for setting this up Tenta, I wish you good luck.

Thus, I think we're all aware of what "Potential Growth" Stands for. It is, in earnest, the possibility for expanding, exponential development, or a gradual increase, based on sheer possibility. I want to get this out of the way, and express, first and foremost, that while the WWE has spent decades at the helm of the wrestling world, they have already met an expansion the likes of which has already made them a worldwide name. Worldwide, they are seen as the provider of "Sports Entertainment", and consequentially, have made themselves the established product in wrestling.

Certainly one would agree that WWE has reached a point where their potential for future growth is limited to the fact that they have already reached their peaks. However the wrestling world has it's peaks, it has it's downsides. WWE had it's down days in the mid 90's due to talent declining, as well as the fact that the steroid scandal took a heavy hit on the popularity of wrestling.

Well guess what, WWE retaliated against their to that date biggest opponent, WCW. They ran them out of business by reinventing themselves, they adopted a new product. Something which can be done again, if needed. Any chance of future growth is there, and it's potential as ever.

Wrestling might not be at it's peak that it was in the 90's as well as the 80's. But have a look at it, there's ups (the Hulkamania wrestling boom), there's downs (The rise of the NWO's impact on WWE ratings) as well as the rise again, Stone Cold Steve Austin and the Attitude Era.

You see the underlined portion of the above paragraph? The key word amongst all of what I've written is, "Already". The WWE has had its chance to become a household name the world over. With markets in Mexico, Japan, and the like, the WWE doesn't really have much room to "potentially" grow. Simply put, they are the established name in professional wrestling, and whether my partner likes to admit it or not, there's realistically little room for expansion of what many have called, "Vince's Empire". He already has set up a product in which does National Tours, and has performed in all of the most famous arenas across the world. 93,000 (allegedly) in the Pontiac Silverdome? Been there, done that. Performing in front of Wembley Stadium? It's been done before. Realistically, what is there left for the WWE to perform, in which they haven't? Have they not, by the year of 2010, already lived up to the portion of potential? Hell, for that matter, if we want to be honest, Vince McMahon has done even more than people have predicted.

Yes congratulations, they have already reached the potential high point. You could practically say they're going the other way now because once you reach the top of the hill, it's bound to be going down again. And by that, it would be thinkable that WWE is going into a down period once again. However that's wrong.

WWE is eagerly pushing their newer talent to prepare for a new era. Something one, with just a little bit of knowledge for the business, could very well be prepared for another wrestling boom. Now I'm not saying it will be a definite wrestling boom. But the chances are there, it's an undeniable fact of the wrestling business that the crowd can make you, or break you. And where's the limits to how big they can make you? Hogan got big as hell, Austin got big as hell, John Cena got.. Big as hell.. And in the coming 5-10 years, who's to say Mr. Big as hell version 4 is not gonna step up the ranks?

WWE produced Hulk Hogan in the matter of very few years, he re-debuted with WWF in the start of the 80's (More accurately December 27 1983). Now how long exactly did it take Hogan to become the world champion? A little under a month. proclaiming Hulkamania to have arrived.

Look at that, it didn't even take Vince McMahon 6 months to create the biggest deal in wrestling history. The biggest draw (Which I will get back to).

Austin it took him a little under 3 years to put him on the top. So it's an undeniable proof that Vince McMahon creates stars, stars that revolutionizes the wrestling business. Now who exactly has TNA created? Oh yes, A.J Styles. Over personality and all that, but in the end of the day, does the world really care?

TNA, within eight years, has already become a national commodity, and has appealed to the masses. However, what shouldn't be lost upon our audience today is the fact that TNA hasn't even begun to explore the world outside the Impact Zone. I’ve said this before, and I don’t mean to misrepresent the company in doing this, but TNA now amounts to nothing more than a Glorified Territory. Allow me to explain myself; While TNA has made ventures out to new, exciting areas such as New York, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, all major wrestling markets, TNA has spent a good portion of their existence complacent to staying close to the Impact’s comfortable walls at Soundstage 21 in Universal Studios, Florida. Since 2006, Impact has recorded most, if not all, of their weekly programs within Orlando, Florida, and have been content in doing so. As a matter of fact, do you know when the first TNA Pay Per View was produced outside the Impact Zone? It was in 2006, two years after they began Monthly Three Hour Pay Per View Productions. As a matter of fact, of all the Pay Per Views of TNA’s, which account for 71 total, 53 have been done in The Impact Zone. That is roughly three quarters of the Pay Per Views done live, in a venue that only fills up about 1,300 people, at the most. When TNA ventures out of these venues, they typically do much better, and while ranging from 3,500 to about 4,000 people isn’t astronomical, it shows me that there’s plenty of room for growth, in terms of putting on events outside the Impact Zone. Again, the fact that they are, pretty much, a territory, yet everyone assumes that they are a national company should tell you plenty about how far TNA has come.

Congratulations to TNA to take 8 years to separate them with what you refer to them yourselves as a glorified territorial promotion. And that's all in all what they are still remaining to be, glorified.

TNA might have the potential to go big, but we've seen it before, what creates a threat for Vince McMahon, gets destroyed with time. And let's not forget what caused that destruction, again - A wrestling boom of dimensions. The Attitude Era, causing, you guessed it, growth. And it wasn't just a minor growth.

Sure you can argue that the "enemy" at that time, WCW, did in fact get quite a growth themselves, they made themselves somewhat of a wrestling boom by giving us arguably the biggest heel turn in wrestling history. And that would mean that TNA could do it as well, the problem however is. Name power, you've said it yourself, they have all the names. But in the end of the day, all of them has been turned heel in one way or another. TNA simply does not have a house-hold name that is worth turning heel to draw the ratings. However, WWE has - John Cena. Now I'm not for a John Cena heel turn, but it's fact on paper that a large portion of the crowd would slowly be jizzing their pants to destruction with every second that John Cena cuts his heel turn promo.

And with that, sure you could argue "Then WWE has nobody to carry the top dog of the company, the face! Oh noes what shall they do". Well meet Randy Orton, he's over, he's beloved, and his career is pretty much as long as John Cena's. This very guy could easily carry the company just looking at how the fans basically goes apeshit when he does a damn pose. A DAMN POSE!

Eventually, the hope is that TNA, within 6-7 years, will be touring nationally, and the Impact Zone would be a thing of the past. Consider that for a second; that would be like the WWE producing all of their shows at Bridgeport Connecticut’s Harbor Yard, and even then the analogy doesn’t fit, as Harbor Yard can easily seat between 8,000-9000 for a Wrestling Event. At this point, The WWE has the America Market cornered and little room for expansion. TNA can easily grow out their fan base across the country, and become a real national player in the business.

The potential for TNA to go national is certainly there. But it doesn't mean that the potential growth exceeds the potential that WWE could present. Or for that sake that TNA going national will even mean anything. In the end they're proving no threat to the so called "Well oiled machine that is World Wrestling Entertainment".

TNA is drawing low ratings, at an average of between 0.90 - 1.1 in ratings. Impressive huh? The only time WWE is drawing those ratings is when they're presenting NXT. The 3rd rate show!

That doesn't necessarily spell the greatest future for TNA, much less when they tried to copy a WCW move of presenting themselves like a threat to the WWE in the first few months of 2010. By presenting name worthy draws, people that (Here we come back to it) used to draw. Ric Flair isn't pulling the ratings, Sting isn't pulling the ratings, Kurt Angle isn't and never has truly been pulling great ratings for TNA, and most importantly - Hogan is not pulling the ratings. The biggest draw of the industry, EVER. Is not pulling the ratings!

Even to some extent, has the World Market, as well. Though, it’s only fair to point out that TNA pulls typically higher ratings in England, and one of their programs, Xplosion, has been running in England for months. The potential in this market, frankly, can’t be denied. Because the WWE is part of a package in which English have to pay extra for the channel the WWE can be found on, Sky Sports. As of this moment, Sky Sports and the WWE have agreed to a new five year extension, meaning that while the WWE is on programming, that they are binded to this five year marriage with Sky Sports, at least until 2014, as the deal was signed in 2009. Less homes purchased in means, as you can guess, fewer eyeballs. Why pay for a program when you can another, similar product on a channel that’s free?

Yes they're pulling the higher ratings in England. Again congratulations to them, but the primary product that draws the ratings should be presented in the United States. Sure you got another country backing you up, it's great money when you're on tour. But it's not the home base, it's not where TNA should be hoping to present their Pay Per Views to pull in the crowds, crowds which are very small.

Victory Road 2010 has just passed. Crowd attendance: 1100 (According to Wikipedia mind you). Supposedly the live event crowd attendance record was broken in 2010 at a live event in New York. Wanna know how many people they drew? Between 5500 to 6000 fans. It's less than what WWE has drawn to a house-show in years. And especially not in New York! (Source SesScoops)

Impact is something that currently plays on Bravo, and there have been rumblings that TNA may be in negotiations to appear on ESPN. It’s all very tentative, but at the least, TNA appears on Bravo, in Prime Time, on a basic Cable Channel. Before, TNA hasn’t had the funds to appear in England, but this June, TNA has made the trip over the pond, to further expand their burgeoning name to the Europeans. It may in fact be possible that by 2014, which is well within the date of which we’re debating, that TNA may be as recognizable a name in most countries than in the WWE. The shows are said to be well received and popular, which is much better than a program one could say is only being received by a rare few, such as the WWE.

Yes, fair enough TNA is appearing on free television. Good for them, it might draw a few viewers here and there. But it's been said that their product is supposed to be garbage as of late. Ever since Hogan and Bischoff was brought in the show has been garbage, with few exceptions. And don't just take my words for it, I don't usually agree with it, but take the TNA fans word for it. Ask our dear TNA moderator what he thinks of the shows ever since January 4th 2010.

The show is indeed well received, but so is the WWE. The WWE is still pulling massive crowds whenever they go to England. While they might not have the same amounts of British roster members that TNA does, it is however not an automatic key to success just because you got a roster filled with slightly unpopular Englishmen that half of the fans couldn't give a damn about. As opposed to the fact that Wade Barrett has proved to have been over during their trip to the United Kingdoms, especially their NXT taping in London. He was supposed to be the heel, but he got a great reaction.

And even as a heel, even as arguably one of, if not the top heel alongside the rest of The Nexus, this group is still pulling in the ratings, which has slowly improved by 0.1 - 0.3 in the past months period of time, this week getting a steady 3.5 rating. Potential growth right there ladies and gentlemen.

Also, TNA has yet to actually place an identity to its program to the national public, but has done so recently, with the signing of some of the greatest legends in the history of wrestling. Say what you will about the signings of Hogan, Sting, Flair, and the like, but they are good for undeniable reason; Name recognition. Simply put, adding a name like Hogan can’t even be accounted for how important it is to TNA’s national recognition. If there’s one wrestler that is identifiable with professional wrestling, it has to be Hulk Hogan. If you were to ask the public for a second name, I’m pretty sure you’ll find a good population that name Ric Flair. Some will name Mick Foley, some will name Sting, but you get my point.

The fact that these greatest legends aren't pulling any ratings in, and the fact that TNA hasn't shown any sign of improvement in the last 6 months isn't exactly something that would make you jump up over the whole fact that TNA is trying to improve themselves. REALITY CHECK - IT'S NOT WORKING!

It's been uttered before by fans on here, and I'm certain it's been uttered by talents themselves that TNA needs to focus on building the future, not relying on the past. There's plenty of new talent and young talent at that which can build the company. WWE is doing it just fine, they're actually building new, young future stars. Potential growth once more.

TNA had done an effective job in signing names to bring positive publicity to their program. The adding of these names can help a brand expand to national levels in years, and even after they’re gone, the rub in which they provide wrestlers like AJ Styles, Samoa Joe, and the like will do wonders for how those names will be viewed in the public.

Yes they have done an effective job at signing names, but none of them has accomplished anything that is worth putting a "NOTICE" sticker on the promotion. TNA had some shock value here and there but that's just classic Russo, but it hasn't worked now has it? Not at all. TNA is in the same place rating wise they've always been, maybe with a slight improvement at times. But the product is still not drawing ratings. I'm certain the ratings are even getting lower due to the product at times.

And now TNA is focusing on bringing back elder men that are in their late 30's into their 40's and want them to work hardcore matches. These guys are the old ECW guys. Interesting. Let me point you to the argument I made for that not being the greatest thing in the world.

Spoiler

Honestly? Why should I give a damn? I watch WWE primarily. But Mark has a point. He does state the obvious that it's ridiculous for TNA to promote a concept they could practically get their ass sued for.

They're basically remaking One Night Stand. And it doesn't even seem interesting anymore. These talents are older, they're aged. The majority of them probably wouldn't be able to hold a candle to their 90's performances. Much less the ridiculousness behind the fact that the fans started chanting for Sabu. Arguably the most dangerous man in the ring, and not because of his gimmick.

And don't get me wrong. I don't mind what TNA is doing with it, I really don't. Because in the end I don't care enough for it. ECW has always been garbage to me. Back in 90 it was garbage, it was garbage in WWE, and it's gonna be garbage now.

So I can totally follow Mark Madden's opinion. He has a point in it being a bad move, and that Dixie knows zero. Sure it brings a few fans in here and there. But the exact same fans are gonna be complaining when they see that TNA couldn't even bring back half the greatness that they thought of ECW in the 90's. The only reason One Night Stand was special was due to it being something fresh in an old way, and unscripted. And look where that went.

Look at the bolded parts and tell me I'm not right.

TNA has yet to even have a chance to expand its shows on a national level consistently, and the minute its able to do so on a weekly basis, wrestlers will find fame and fortune the likes of which they’ve never seen before. The effective combination of name recognition, combined with the workers of the company to keep shows entertaining and effective, will provide a show which can potentially catch fire.

That's bullshit. TNA has had all the chances in the world to get a contract. They're promoting themselves on Spike TV, a place where WWE thrived for the better part of 5 years. Between 2000 to 2005, let's look at the ratings for that period of time shall we?

Spoiler

September 25, 2000 5.4
October 2, 2000 5.4
October 9, 2000 5.4
October 16, 2000 4.8
October 23, 2000 5.5
October 30, 2000 4.9
November 6, 2000 5.1
November 13, 2000 5.0
November 20, 2000 5.0
November 27, 2000 5.0
December 4, 2000 5.0
December 11, 2000 5.75
December 18, 2000 4.8
December 25, 2000 3.8

2001
Date Rating
January 1, 2001 4.55
January 8, 2001 4.8
January 15, 2001 5.2
January 22, 2001 5.6
January 29, 2001 5.4
February 5, 2001 5.0
February 12, 2001 4.8
February 19, 2001 4.8
February 26, 2001 5.1
March 5, 2001 4.5
March 12, 2001 4.9
March 19, 2001 4.6
March 26, 2001 4.7
April 2, 2001 5.7
April 9, 2001 5.4
April 16, 2001 5.1
April 23, 2001 5.1
April 30, 2001 4.98
May 7, 2001 4.6
May 14, 2001 4.5
May 21, 2001 4.2
May 28, 2001 4.2
June 4, 2001 4.3
June 11, 2001 4.1
June 18, 2001 4.2
June 25, 2001 4.7
July 2, 2001 4.6
July 9, 2001 4.7
July 16, 2001 5.0
July 23, 2001 5.4
July 30, 2001 5.7
August 6, 2001 5.4
August 13, 2001 5.2
August 20, 2001 5.2
August 27, 2001 4.8
September 3, 2001 4.6
September 10, 2001 4.6
September 17, 2001 4.8
September 24, 2001 4.5
October 1, 2001 4.4
October 8, 2001 4.5
October 15, 2001 4.1
October 22, 2001 3.9
October 29, 2001 4.1
November 5, 2001 3.9
November 12, 2001 4.1
November 19, 2001 4.8
November 26, 2001 4.4
December 3, 2001 4.2
December 10, 2001 4.7
December 17, 2001 4.0
December 24, 2001 3.2
December 31, 2001 2.4

2002
Date Rating
January 7, 2002 4.9
January 14, 2002 4.4
January 21, 2002 4.6
January 28, 2002 4.5
February 4, 2002 4.5
February 11, 2002 4.4
February 18, 2002 4.7
February 25, 2002 4.7
March 4, 2002 4.5
March 11, 2002 4.5
March 18, 2002 5.3
March 25, 2002 5.4
April 1, 2002 4.8
April 8, 2002 4.8
April 15, 2002 4.8
April 22, 2002 4.8
April 29, 2002 4.4
May 6, 2002 4.6
May 13, 2002 3.9
May 20, 2002 3.7
May 27, 2002 3.7
June 3, 2002 4.1
June 10, 2002 4.2
June 17, 2002 3.9
June 24, 2002 3.7
July 1, 2002 3.6
July 8, 2002 3.7
July 15, 2002 3.8
July 22, 2002 4.3
July 29, 2002 3.7
August 5, 2002 3.7
August 12, 2002 3.9
August 19, 2902 4.0
August 26, 2002 3.9
September 2, 2002 3.6
September 9, 2002 3.4
September 16, 2002 3.4
September 23, 2002 3.6
September 30, 2002 3.6
October 7, 2002 3.8
October 14, 2002 3.8
October 21, 2002 3.7
October 28, 2002 3.4
November 4, 2002 3.5
November 11, 2002 3.1
November 18, 2002 3.7
November 25, 2002 3.4
December 2, 2002 3.3
December 9, 2002 3.3
December 16, 2002 3.5
December 23, 2002 3.3

2003
Date Rating
January 6, 2003 3.6
January 13, 2003 3.9
January 20, 2003 3.8
January 27, 2003 4.1
February 3, 2003 3.5
February 10, 2003 3.9
February 17, 2003 3.8
February 24, 2003 4.0
March 3, 2003 4.5
March 10, 2003 4.0
March 17, 2003 3.8
March 24, 2003 3.5
March 31, 2003 3.7
April 7, 2003 3.5
April 14, 2003 3.45
April 21, 2003 3.8
April 28, 2003 3.9
May 5, 2003 3.5
May 12, 2003 4.4
May 19, 2003 3.6
May 26, 2003 3.7
June 2, 2003 3.9
June 9, 2003 3.5
June 16, 2003 4.1
June 23, 2003 3.9
June 30, 2003 3.6
July 7, 2003 4.2
July 14, 2003 3.8
July 21, 2003 4.2
July 28, 2003 4.2
August 4, 2003 4.0
August 11, 2003 3.9
August 18, 2003 4.0
August 25, 2003 4.2
September 1, 2003 4.3
September 8, 2003 3.6
September 15, 2003 3.7
September 22, 2003 3.6
September 29, 2003 3.4
October 6, 2003 3.4
October 13, 2003 3.6
October 20, 2003 3.7
October 27, 2003 3.4
November 3, 2003 3.4
November 10, 2003 3.7
November 17, 2003 3.6
November 24, 2003 3.6
December 1, 2003 3.7
December 8, 2003 3.8
December 15, 2003 3.5
December 29, 2003 3.7

2004
Date Rating
January 5, 2004 3.5
January 12, 2004 3.6
January 19, 2004 3.3
January 26, 2004 4.0
February 2, 2004 3.7
February 9, 2004 3.8
February 16, 2004 3.8
February 23, 2004 3.9
March 1, 2004 3.8
March 8, 2004 3.8
March 15, 2004 4.0
March 22, 2004 4.5
March 29, 2004 4.3
April 5, 2004 3.8
April 12, 2004 3.8
April 19, 2004 3.8
April 26, 2004 4.0
May 3, 2004 3.9
May 10, 2004 3.4
May 17, 2004 4.0
May 24, 2004 3.5
May 31, 2004 3.2
June 7, 2004 3.4
June 14, 2004 3.6
June 21, 2004 4.2
June 28, 2004 3.7
July 5, 2004 3.6
July 12, 2004 3.7
July 19, 2004 3.7
July 26, 2004 3.6
August 2, 2004 3.8
August 9, 2004 3.9
August 16, 2004 3.4
August 23, 2004 3.6
August 30, 2004 3.5
September 6, 2004 3.7
September 13, 2004 3.6
September 20, 2004 3.7
September 27, 2004 3.5
October 4, 2004 3.4
October 11, 2004 3.4
October 18, 2004 3.0
October 25, 2004 3.7
November 1, 2004 3.6
November 8, 2004 3.6
November 15, 2004 3.9
November 22, 2004 3.9
November 29, 2004 3.9
December 6, 2004 3.9
December 13, 2004 3.8
December 20, 2004 2.7
December 27, 2004 3.5

2005
Date Rating
January 3, 2005 3.4
January 10, 2005 3.8
January 17, 2005 3.8
January 24, 2005 3.8
January 31, 2005 4.1
February 7, 2005 3.7
February 14, 2005 3.9
February 21, 2005 4.0
February 28, 2005 4.1
March 7, 2005 3.8
March 14, 2005 3.8
March 21, 2005 3.9
March 28, 2005 4.0
April 4, 2005 4.3
April 11, 2005 4.1
April 18, 2005 3.9
April 25, 2005 4.0
May 2, 2005 4.1
May 9, 2005 3.8
May 16, 2005 4.3
May 23, 2005 3.6
May 30, 2005 3.8
June 6, 2005 3.7
June 13, 2005 4.0
June 20, 2005 3.9
June 27, 2005 4.4
July 4, 2005 2.6
July 11, 2005 3.6
July 18, 2005 3.8
July 25, 2005 3.7
August 1, 2005 3.8
August 8, 2005 3.7
August 15, 2005 3.8
August 22, 2005 4.0
August 29, 2005 3.9
September 5, 2005 3.6
September 12, 2005 3.3
September 19, 2005 3.6
September 26, 2005 3.2

Yes I do apologize for the size of it. But it proves that WWE has been able to pull just fine ratings during that time, even during a time where talent was supposedly declining in the terms that Brock Lesnar was leaving, Stone Cold Steve Austin was leaving, The Rock was leaving. The 3 stars of that period. Hogan left once again during that period after a brief stint as well (Where the arguably only worth while mention he did there was feuding with Vince and The Rock if I may say so myself).

So with this information presented, it's obvious that TNA, if they could, should be pulling bigger ratings. But they're not, which would be screaming the fact that they're, again - NOT DOING IT RIGHT. So by the current product, they won't be the promotion with the biggest potential growth. WWE will.

Look, folks, it’s absolutely simple; The WWE has little room for growth anyway, as they’ve already reached as high in the public as they’ll get. The WWE is still trying to fight off the negative stigma behind the Chris Benoit double murder-suicide. They have, and had, their time as the big dog in the professional wrestling market, and have had the chance to grow and expand already, and have done so. The WWE seems insistent that for the next generation, the status quo is absolutely acceptable, and they are satisfied resting on their loins, at the moment. Admittedly, they could possibly put TNA out of business now if they really wanted to, but have become content with the market they’ve created.

Thank you Tenta for reminding me of the stigma from Chris Benoit, which brings us back about 15 years prior to that. The steroid scandal, the business as a general took a large hit due to that, talent declined to WCW where Hogan was still without proper popularity mainly because he became stale, but also because of the steroid scandal. This allowed Vince McMahon to push smaller stars, Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart got a bigger push. They weren't supposed draws, but it slowly build towards another wrestling boom. And guess who build towards that, the smaller guy, Shawn Michaels.

If we're then supposed to believe that Chris Benoit's incident would spark a little bit of life in another direction of WWE, the PG Era is the other direction, soon enough you could very well be expecting another wrestling boom, damn well it's about time we get another one, how long has it been? 12 years? About so.

And sure they might be accepting their top at the crop position. But it's been seen before that a promotion would present a growth (Note, not necessarily a bigger growth) to present a challenge for WWE. TNA could very well do this, and with that period of time, as well go out of business. Potential growth? Sure, wrong direction though. But I guess growing downwards is doable as well, I mean look at carrots.

TNA, on the other hand, has nowhere to go but up. They’ve yet to even have a chance to expand their name on a national level, the same way the WWE has. They’ve yet to reach the climax of their business, as the WWE has. TNA has all the chance, and ability, to create a further name in the national market, which they admittedly aren’t now. The WWE has very little to expand on; TNA has every possible way to expand, on a national and international level.

They could go downwards, there's no denying that, I mean they're not on the verge of bankruptcy Tenta. There's always two directions to go. Back, or forth.

As well as there's always potential for future growth, it's arguable how much potential there is however. That's what this thread is the purpose of after all, so there's no denying that TNA has it's potential, but the potential to expand more than WWE, that's something I have yet to put my eyes on.

Also WWE might not have as much international ways to expand, they got it pretty covered, but there's still numerous countries as well as cities that could present a crowd for a house-show but WWE has yet to capitalize on it.

Did you know Denmark only gets one RAW episode, that is 2 weeks old, on a specific channel not everybody gets? As well as our biggest stadium could contain enough people for a little over 38 thousand people to be seated in the arena. A football arena! Think about after the sets, as well as floor seats. The crowd that could be placed inside of that arena, and WWE, as well as TNA has yet to capitalize on it.

 

[Tenta]

First off, I thank you for setting this up Tenta, I wish you good luck.

Best of luck to you, as it seems we're going to have a long day together

Certainly one would agree that WWE has reached a point where their potential for future growth is limited to the fact that they have already reached their peaks. However the wrestling world has it's peaks, it has it's downsides. WWE had it's down days in the mid 90's due to talent declining, as well as the fact that the steroid scandal took a heavy hit on the popularity of wrestling.

Well guess what, WWE retaliated against their to that date biggest opponent, WCW. They ran them out of business by reinventing themselves, they adopted a new product. Something which can be done again, if needed. Any chance of future growth is there, and it's potential as ever.

Except, at this point, the WWE has concentrated its energies towards a direction, and pending Linda McMahon's venture into politics, will continue this path as long as Linda McMahon, though admittedly McMahon is going to face an uphill battle, being a Republican running in the state of Connecticut. Of course, there are other factors that led to the WWE's "PG" Ruling; we surely can't ignore the 800 pound Benoit in the room, but you make mention of him earlier, so for now, we'll put that on the back burner.

Wrestling might not be at it's peak that it was in the 90's as well as the 80's. But have a look at it, there's ups (the Hulkamania wrestling boom), there's downs (The rise of the NWO's impact on WWE ratings) as well as the rise again, Stone Cold Steve Austin and the Attitude Era.

Look at the names you're conjuring up, Ferbs. Hogan, Austin, the nWo. First of all, I'm going to mind you that the nWo, initially, killed the WWE's ratings. Which proves my point; at any moment, a challenger can arise for the WWE. Look how quickly Eric took a floundering WCW, and made them viable competitors. TNA hasn't had the chance to even put the pieces in place to begin a run against WWE. Once Bischoff had two mid card superstars from the WWE, he created a plan that, for 84 weeks, had WWE on the brink of financial bankruptcy. For all your talk of theoretically WWE reaching a new boom period, TNA can arise as a new national challenger in one fell swoop. They have the pieces together, but have really only had eight months from the Hogan signing to allow everything to gel. Furthermore, I guess I better bring this out, but the PG Era is probably the way of the future, because lookie here, the WWE is now a publicly traded company. That means instead of doing things as Vince always does, taking no hesitation and just doing things, Vince has a lot of people he has to answer to. Yes, he's the owner, but he has to take into account the Stockholders that hold a majority of his shares. TNA, meanwhile, isn't bound by that. As long as Spike gives TNA the thumbs up, they can produce as much adult entertainment as they want. Seeing how this is the channel that allows midget wrestling, I find it hard to believe that they're going to limit TNA, especially when TNA is already the biggest draw on Spike TV.

Yes congratulations, they have already reached the potential high point. You could practically say they're going the other way now because once you reach the top of the hill, it's bound to be going down again. And by that, it would be thinkable that WWE is going into a down period once again. However that's wrong.

Very well, let's see exactly how you quanitfy that.

WWE is eagerly pushing their newer talent to prepare for a new era. Something one, with just a little bit of knowledge for the business, could very well be prepared for another wrestling boom. Now I'm not saying it will be a definite wrestling boom. But the chances are there, it's an undeniable fact of the wrestling business that the crowd can make you, or break you. And where's the limits to how big they can make you? Hogan got big as hell, Austin got big as hell, John Cena got.. Big as hell.. And in the coming 5-10 years, who's to say Mr. Big as hell version 4 is not gonna step up the ranks?

Hmmmmm......

[YOUTUBE]etuPF1yJRzg&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]​

Yeah... John Sena is the crab of the bunch. Look, to say Cena is a star comparable to Austin and Hogan... I'm sorry, but I want whatever shit you just got off Amsterdam, man. No, John Cena is not big as hell, especially when you compare that to the names you just did. If anything, Cena is more about the same popularity level of Bret Hart, who led the WWE during its, well, Dark Ages.

That said, who are you to even assume that star can only come from the WWE? What, TNA is incapable of having that same star? You're making it out to be like the WWE is the only option for wrestlers, which quite frankly is bullshit. TNA has just as much chance of getting a wrestler over in the Impact Zone

WWE produced Hulk Hogan in the matter of very few years, he re-debuted with WWF in the start of the 80's (More accurately December 27 1983). Now how long exactly did it take Hogan to become the world champion? A little under a month. proclaiming Hulkamania to have arrived.

Look at that, it didn't even take Vince McMahon 6 months to create the biggest deal in wrestling history. The biggest draw (Which I will get back to).

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa!

No. No, you didn't just go there. Ok, Ferbs. I see what you're doing there; you're clearly showing the audience you have little, to absolutely no, experience in the 1980s. Because, see, if you did, you would know that Hogan's main factor for "getting over" was the fact that he played Thunder Lips in Rocky III. Yes, it led to his first departure from the WWWF, when Vince Sr. Was running the company. That said, much of Hogan's success comes from that appearence in that movie. He could have just as easily become a superstar in the AWA, had Verne Gange not treated him like crap, who knows how history would have played out. You've clearly never watched AWA programming; Hogan was just as much a draw there as he would be his first title run in the WWE. As a matter of fact, Vince intended to actually use Tony Atlas before Hulk Hogan fell into his lap, because he didn't want to to work for the AWA. McMahon piggeybacked off the success of the AWA's character, not a fucking creation of his own. Vince created the name "Hulkamania", and otherwise, everything else was done by Hogan, the AWA, and Rocky III. So, yeah, feel free to keep showing your ignorance here.

Austin it took him a little under 3 years to put him on the top. So it's an undeniable proof that Vince McMahon creates stars, stars that revolutionizes the wrestling business. Now who exactly has TNA created? Oh yes, A.J Styles. Over personality and all that, but in the end of the day, does the world really care?

I'm sorry, Ferbs... Did you forget a little part in Austin's career? Let me refresh everyone's memory.

[YOUTUBE]6oaBeGv4gRM[/YOUTUBE]​

Yeah, if you remember correctly, Ferbian, Stone Cold wasn't always Stone Cold. Vince was bantering on about The Ringmaster, and when Steve Austin suggested his character take a more "cold" personality, the WWE offered him ideas like "Chilly McFreeze" and "Ice Dagger", man. Which brings me to something we agree on, that stars are completely random, and you can never tell what's going to click with the fans. What I'll tell you is that when there's a superstar that's shown to the national public, that superstar tends to get over. And that's the case with stars like Pope Dinero, Mr. Anderson. What, all WWE products, you say? Well, Hogan came from the AWA, and Austin from WCW. Guess they were WWE products, too? You need to get off this stigma of who the WWE "created". Stars create themselves, and right now, TNA has the ability to have the better name recognition, and arguably the deeper talent roster. AJ Styles, Samoa Joe, Kurt Angle (Who is a TNA product), even Jeff Hardy, who was doing his whole face paint schtick in TNA for about three years, so don't bother calling him just a "WWE" product.

Congratulations to TNA to take 8 years to separate them with what you refer to them yourselves as a glorified territorial promotion. And that's all in all what they are still remaining to be, glorified.

TNA might have the potential to go big, but we've seen it before, what creates a threat for Vince McMahon, gets destroyed with time. And let's not forget what caused that destruction, again - A wrestling boom of dimensions. The Attitude Era, causing, you guessed it, growth. And it wasn't just a minor growth.

Yeah, again, you're making the WCW-WWE war to be domination when the WWE finally decided to take out the WCW. Again, complete revisionist history, man. For 84 Weeks, WCW kicked WWE's ass three ways to Sunday, to the point that they almost financially folded. You can't ignore that, though you tried, oh, you're trying really hard to. It wasn't like Vince did it all by himself, and by his choice. He had plenty of times where Eric and WCW just had a better product. And eventually, the better product wins out. TNA, at this point, offers better wrestling, and longer matches than Raw, Smackdown, and NXT. We won't both to go into ratings, though you will soon enough, but the point is, stupid skits aside, TNA offers a product for WWE fans that have become jilted by the fact that matches rarely last past four minutes on Raw.

Sure you can argue that the "enemy" at that time, WCW, did in fact get quite a growth themselves, they made themselves somewhat of a wrestling boom by giving us arguably the biggest heel turn in wrestling history.

Somewhat of a boom? They almost caused the WWE to go into Bankruptcy, Ferbian. Get your head out of WWE's ass, and get yourself to a book or something.

And that would mean that TNA could do it as well, the problem however is. Name power, you've said it yourself, they have all the names. But in the end of the day, all of them has been turned heel in one way or another. TNA simply does not have a house-hold name that is worth turning heel to draw the ratings.

Oh, you're not really going to go there, are you? Let me check.

*Goes to see the Cena turns Heelz argument*

Yes, yes you did. Look, we even discussed it, but within eight years of WCW, they were still doing Hulkamania. The nWo would be coming soon, but you're right, name power is important, as well as time to get out that name. TNA hasn't even had the chance to tour nationally, and when they do, you'll find that plenty more markets are going to be open to TNA's programming.

However, WWE has - John Cena. Now I'm not for a John Cena heel turn, but it's fact on paper that a large portion of the crowd would slowly be jizzing their pants to destruction with every second that John Cena cuts his heel turn promo. And with that, sure you could argue "Then WWE has nobody to carry the top dog of the company, the face! Oh noes what shall they do". Well meet Randy Orton, he's over, he's beloved, and his career is pretty much as long as John Cena's. This very guy could easily carry the company just looking at how the fans basically goes apeshit when he does a damn pose. A DAMN POSE!

No, see, you don't get it Ferbian. We, the IWC? We're a small community of fans, really. We don't really matter much within the grand context of things. What Vince has to cater to is the mainstream if he wants to expand. What you're talking about right now, Ferbian, is pandering to the IWC, which would diminish the profits and revenue of the WWE. How, you ask? Merchandise. You can't forget how important that shit is, and John Cena is Vince's cash cow. Randy Orton's merchandise may sell, but it's absolutely nowhere near Cena's revenue. So yeah, the idea to turn him heel? Really oughta reconsider that argument. Not only is it pandering to a smaller crowd, who whether we like to admit it, doesn't mean much, but it's taking away a huge source of revenue, in merchandise.

The potential for TNA to go national is certainly there. But it doesn't mean that the potential growth exceeds the potential that WWE could present. Or for that sake that TNA going national will even mean anything. In the end they're proving no threat to the so called "Well oiled machine that is World Wrestling Entertainment".

TNA is drawing low ratings, at an average of between 0.90 - 1.1 in ratings. Impressive huh? The only time WWE is drawing those ratings is when they're presenting NXT. The 3rd rate show!

Yes, yes, ratings argument, blah blah blah. Look, quite frankly, Spike is a smaller, less established channel than RAW is. Working with the fact that TNA doesn't have a name brand like the WWE yet, and the ratings are really an asinine argument. Besides, the point of this discussion isn't what both companies have done, it's what both companies can do. Stick to the main argument, Ferbian.

That doesn't necessarily spell the greatest future for TNA, much less when they tried to copy a WCW move of presenting themselves like a threat to the WWE in the first few months of 2010. By presenting name worthy draws, people that (Here we come back to it) used to draw. Ric Flair isn't pulling the ratings, Sting isn't pulling the ratings, Kurt Angle isn't and never has truly been pulling great ratings for TNA, and most importantly - Hogan is not pulling the ratings. The biggest draw of the industry, EVER. Is not pulling the ratings!

Again, have only had eight months to draw, and in the grand scheme of things, the fact that in four years of sustained television with those names, and even less for most of them, and the ratings have consistently gone up. Are they starting to plataeu? You could argue that, but it's a horrible argument. You also have to remember,Hogan isn't wrestling, Flair rarely wrestles, so it isn't as though these are active, consistent wrestlers for TNA. So using that whole "he's the biggest draw" argument doesn't work, if he isn't wrestling.

Yes they're pulling the higher ratings in England. Again congratulations to them, but the primary product that draws the ratings should be presented in the United States. Sure you got another country backing you up, it's great money when you're on tour. But it's not the home base, it's not where TNA should be hoping to present their Pay Per Views to pull in the crowds, crowds which are very small.

In other words, Ferbian dodges the argument. You're ignoring the entire basis of it. TNA has a stronger market overseas, it really does. I don't know why you're being so casual about that, because it's somewhere of more potential growth for both WWE and TNA. Overseas numbers are going to be huge, it's why the WWE is wetting its feet in Japan and Mexico, though that will never work, as few wrestlers work the styles Japanese and Mexican fans have been raised on. Japanese fans love Puro, Mexicans love lucha libre, and the WWE offers neither. TNA, on the other hand, offers similar styles, that the fans can get into.

Victory Road 2010 has just passed. Crowd attendance: 1100 (According to Wikipedia mind you).

Uh huh.... Impact Zone, buddy. What do you think I've been arguing so long.

Supposedly the live event crowd attendance record was broken in 2010 at a live event in New York. Wanna know how many people they drew? Between 5500 to 6000 fans. It's less than what WWE has drawn to a house-show in years. And especially not in New York! (Source SesScoops)

Yeah, good job with that.... MCU Field is a baseball stadium, and minor league at that. That was a sold out crowd for a wrestling venue of that building, which can typically hold 7,000 for a baseball game, and pending alterations made for a wrestling event, is probably less. If anything, all you've proven is that there is a definite interest in the TNA product outside of Orlando. So yeah, good job making my point for me.

Yes, fair enough TNA is appearing on free television. Good for them, it might draw a few viewers here and there. But it's been said that their product is supposed to be garbage as of late. Ever since Hogan and Bischoff was brought in the show has been garbage, with few exceptions. And don't just take my words for it, I don't usually agree with it, but take the TNA fans word for it. Ask our dear TNA moderator what he thinks of the shows ever since January 4th 2010.

Not going to bother, as all opinions are subjective, and this is a matter of opinion. What can't be argued is that TNA started on a tiny network in Fox Sports Net, and garnered a .3. They worked themselves in a position now where they're a recognized name in the business, to the point that they're now seen as a national product. And again, we're talking potential to become, we aren't talking about what already has happened. Yes, TNA has made a mistake going to Mondays. It's over, and TNA has worked themselves back to the way they used to be. Now, there's a proven interest in other markets, especially larger wrestling markets, and in 5-10 years, TNA has the potential to be able to perform shows on a regular touring circuit. For doing that in 13 years of production, with no backing from a billionaire like Ted Turner, that is remarkable, because that means they'll have gone from teritorry to national market in span of time that was only beaten by ECW. Seeing as how they have executives to run the show, instead of Paul Heyman, I find it hard to believe that they'll go belly under like ECW.

The show is indeed well received, but so is the WWE. The WWE is still pulling massive crowds whenever they go to England. While they might not have the same amounts of British roster members that TNA does, it is however not an automatic key to success just because you got a roster filled with slightly unpopular Englishmen that half of the fans couldn't give a damn about. As opposed to the fact that Wade Barrett has proved to have been over during their trip to the United Kingdoms, especially their NXT taping in London. He was supposed to be the heel, but he got a great reaction.

What's your point here? Wade Barrett is a draw? Let's wait a while before we can annoint him that. Of course he's going to get the home reaction, what the fuck did you expect? It isn't about having British Wrestlers, it's about being part of a free TV Package, something you can;t argue with, so you're trying to shift the focus.

And even as a heel, even as arguably one of, if not the top heel alongside the rest of The Nexus, this group is still pulling in the ratings, which has slowly improved by 0.1 - 0.3 in the past months period of time, this week getting a steady 3.5 rating. Potential growth right there ladies and gentlemen.

But when put into the context of the numbers you're about to crunch earlier, it really doesn't look great. Besides, you've been deriding TNA for their smaller ratings, so I find it a tad hypocritical you're going to say the WWE, losing about 40% of it's audience from 2001 alone, let alone the Attitude Era, is a good thing.

The fact that these greatest legends aren't pulling any ratings in, and the fact that TNA hasn't shown any sign of improvement in the last 6 months isn't exactly something that would make you jump up over the whole fact that TNA is trying to improve themselves. REALITY CHECK - IT'S NOT WORKING!

It's been uttered before by fans on here, and I'm certain it's been uttered by talents themselves that TNA needs to focus on building the future, not relying on the past. There's plenty of new talent and young talent at that which can build the company. WWE is doing it just fine, they're actually building new, young future stars. Potential growth once more

.

And that's what they're doing, by allowing Styles, Jay Lethal, Beer Money, and the like to get the rub from these superstars. That's really all the legends are good for, and the fans realize this. They don't expect Hogan and the like to be out there wrestling every week, as you seem to expect.

Yes they have done an effective job at signing names, but none of them has accomplished anything that is worth putting a "NOTICE" sticker on the promotion. TNA had some shock value here and there but that's just classic Russo, but it hasn't worked now has it? Not at all. TNA is in the same place rating wise they've always been, maybe with a slight improvement at times. But the product is still not drawing ratings. I'm certain the ratings are even getting lower due to the product at times.

Look, what you seem to not get is that it's a lesser known channel, and I'm not sure how you feel the signings have done nothing. Again, TNA went from about a .3 in its inception to 1.3 now. Those signings didn't help... Where, again?

Look, I'm not going to lie... I hate the ECW angle. Always have, and always will, so I'm going to just concede it. I believe everything I'm saying, but I'd be lying in saying I believe in this ECW angle. I don't. I find this to be trying to piggeyback of ECW's success, and I hate every moment of it. That said, it will probably be done in a month, and is really harmless.

That's bullshit. TNA has had all the chances in the world to get a contract. They're promoting themselves on Spike TV, a place where WWE thrived for the better part of 5 years. Between 2000 to 2005, let's look at the ratings for that period of time shall we?

Oh, God, the ratings from 2000 to 2005? You're really sure that's going to help your argument?

Spoiler

September 25, 2000 5.4
October 2, 2000 5.4
October 9, 2000 5.4
October 16, 2000 4.8
October 23, 2000 5.5
October 30, 2000 4.9
November 6, 2000 5.1
November 13, 2000 5.0
November 20, 2000 5.0
November 27, 2000 5.0
December 4, 2000 5.0
December 11, 2000 5.75
December 18, 2000 4.8
December 25, 2000 3.8

2001
Date Rating
January 1, 2001 4.55
January 8, 2001 4.8
January 15, 2001 5.2
January 22, 2001 5.6
January 29, 2001 5.4
February 5, 2001 5.0
February 12, 2001 4.8
February 19, 2001 4.8
February 26, 2001 5.1
March 5, 2001 4.5
March 12, 2001 4.9
March 19, 2001 4.6
March 26, 2001 4.7
April 2, 2001 5.7
April 9, 2001 5.4
April 16, 2001 5.1
April 23, 2001 5.1
April 30, 2001 4.98
May 7, 2001 4.6
May 14, 2001 4.5
May 21, 2001 4.2
May 28, 2001 4.2
June 4, 2001 4.3
June 11, 2001 4.1
June 18, 2001 4.2
June 25, 2001 4.7
July 2, 2001 4.6
July 9, 2001 4.7
July 16, 2001 5.0
July 23, 2001 5.4
July 30, 2001 5.7
August 6, 2001 5.4
August 13, 2001 5.2
August 20, 2001 5.2
August 27, 2001 4.8
September 3, 2001 4.6
September 10, 2001 4.6
September 17, 2001 4.8
September 24, 2001 4.5
October 1, 2001 4.4
October 8, 2001 4.5
October 15, 2001 4.1
October 22, 2001 3.9
October 29, 2001 4.1
November 5, 2001 3.9
November 12, 2001 4.1
November 19, 2001 4.8
November 26, 2001 4.4
December 3, 2001 4.2
December 10, 2001 4.7
December 17, 2001 4.0
December 24, 2001 3.2
December 31, 2001 2.4

2002
Date Rating
January 7, 2002 4.9
January 14, 2002 4.4
January 21, 2002 4.6
January 28, 2002 4.5
February 4, 2002 4.5
February 11, 2002 4.4
February 18, 2002 4.7
February 25, 2002 4.7
March 4, 2002 4.5
March 11, 2002 4.5
March 18, 2002 5.3
March 25, 2002 5.4
April 1, 2002 4.8
April 8, 2002 4.8
April 15, 2002 4.8
April 22, 2002 4.8
April 29, 2002 4.4
May 6, 2002 4.6
May 13, 2002 3.9
May 20, 2002 3.7
May 27, 2002 3.7
June 3, 2002 4.1
June 10, 2002 4.2
June 17, 2002 3.9
June 24, 2002 3.7
July 1, 2002 3.6
July 8, 2002 3.7
July 15, 2002 3.8
July 22, 2002 4.3
July 29, 2002 3.7
August 5, 2002 3.7
August 12, 2002 3.9
August 19, 2902 4.0
August 26, 2002 3.9
September 2, 2002 3.6
September 9, 2002 3.4
September 16, 2002 3.4
September 23, 2002 3.6
September 30, 2002 3.6
October 7, 2002 3.8
October 14, 2002 3.8
October 21, 2002 3.7
October 28, 2002 3.4
November 4, 2002 3.5
November 11, 2002 3.1
November 18, 2002 3.7
November 25, 2002 3.4
December 2, 2002 3.3
December 9, 2002 3.3
December 16, 2002 3.5
December 23, 2002 3.3

2003
Date Rating
January 6, 2003 3.6
January 13, 2003 3.9
January 20, 2003 3.8
January 27, 2003 4.1
February 3, 2003 3.5
February 10, 2003 3.9
February 17, 2003 3.8
February 24, 2003 4.0
March 3, 2003 4.5
March 10, 2003 4.0
March 17, 2003 3.8
March 24, 2003 3.5
March 31, 2003 3.7
April 7, 2003 3.5
April 14, 2003 3.45
April 21, 2003 3.8
April 28, 2003 3.9
May 5, 2003 3.5
May 12, 2003 4.4
May 19, 2003 3.6
May 26, 2003 3.7
June 2, 2003 3.9
June 9, 2003 3.5
June 16, 2003 4.1
June 23, 2003 3.9
June 30, 2003 3.6
July 7, 2003 4.2
July 14, 2003 3.8
July 21, 2003 4.2
July 28, 2003 4.2
August 4, 2003 4.0
August 11, 2003 3.9
August 18, 2003 4.0
August 25, 2003 4.2
September 1, 2003 4.3
September 8, 2003 3.6
September 15, 2003 3.7
September 22, 2003 3.6
September 29, 2003 3.4
October 6, 2003 3.4
October 13, 2003 3.6
October 20, 2003 3.7
October 27, 2003 3.4
November 3, 2003 3.4
November 10, 2003 3.7
November 17, 2003 3.6
November 24, 2003 3.6
December 1, 2003 3.7
December 8, 2003 3.8
December 15, 2003 3.5
December 29, 2003 3.7

2004
Date Rating
January 5, 2004 3.5
January 12, 2004 3.6
January 19, 2004 3.3
January 26, 2004 4.0
February 2, 2004 3.7
February 9, 2004 3.8
February 16, 2004 3.8
February 23, 2004 3.9
March 1, 2004 3.8
March 8, 2004 3.8
March 15, 2004 4.0
March 22, 2004 4.5
March 29, 2004 4.3
April 5, 2004 3.8
April 12, 2004 3.8
April 19, 2004 3.8
April 26, 2004 4.0
May 3, 2004 3.9
May 10, 2004 3.4
May 17, 2004 4.0
May 24, 2004 3.5
May 31, 2004 3.2
June 7, 2004 3.4
June 14, 2004 3.6
June 21, 2004 4.2
June 28, 2004 3.7
July 5, 2004 3.6
July 12, 2004 3.7
July 19, 2004 3.7
July 26, 2004 3.6
August 2, 2004 3.8
August 9, 2004 3.9
August 16, 2004 3.4
August 23, 2004 3.6
August 30, 2004 3.5
September 6, 2004 3.7
September 13, 2004 3.6
September 20, 2004 3.7
September 27, 2004 3.5
October 4, 2004 3.4
October 11, 2004 3.4
October 18, 2004 3.0
October 25, 2004 3.7
November 1, 2004 3.6
November 8, 2004 3.6
November 15, 2004 3.9
November 22, 2004 3.9
November 29, 2004 3.9
December 6, 2004 3.9
December 13, 2004 3.8
December 20, 2004 2.7
December 27, 2004 3.5

2005
Date Rating
January 3, 2005 3.4
January 10, 2005 3.8
January 17, 2005 3.8
January 24, 2005 3.8
January 31, 2005 4.1
February 7, 2005 3.7
February 14, 2005 3.9
February 21, 2005 4.0
February 28, 2005 4.1
March 7, 2005 3.8
March 14, 2005 3.8
March 21, 2005 3.9
March 28, 2005 4.0
April 4, 2005 4.3
April 11, 2005 4.1
April 18, 2005 3.9
April 25, 2005 4.0
May 2, 2005 4.1
May 9, 2005 3.8
May 16, 2005 4.3
May 23, 2005 3.6
May 30, 2005 3.8
June 6, 2005 3.7
June 13, 2005 4.0
June 20, 2005 3.9
June 27, 2005 4.4
July 4, 2005 2.6
July 11, 2005 3.6
July 18, 2005 3.8
July 25, 2005 3.7
August 1, 2005 3.8
August 8, 2005 3.7
August 15, 2005 3.8
August 22, 2005 4.0
August 29, 2005 3.9
September 5, 2005 3.6
September 12, 2005 3.3
September 19, 2005 3.6
September 26, 2005 3.2

Yes I do apologize for the size of it. But it proves that WWE has been able to pull just fine ratings during that time, even during a time where talent was supposedly declining in the terms that Brock Lesnar was leaving, Stone Cold Steve Austin was leaving, The Rock was leaving. The 3 stars of that period. Hogan left once again during that period after a brief stint as well (Where the arguably only worth while mention he did there was feuding with Vince and The Rock if I may say so myself).

So with this information presented, it's obvious that TNA, if they could, should be pulling bigger ratings. But they're not, which would be screaming the fact that they're, again - NOT DOING IT RIGHT. So by the current product, they won't be the promotion with the biggest potential growth. WWE will.

Oh, yeah, you did. Um.... Ferbian, are you on crack? How can you say they did consistent business?! 2003 was easily the worst year of business in the WWE, from any fucking standpoint. They lost 2 million consistent viewers in that period. It's bullshit to use the "Rock, Austin, and Lesnar" quit shit, because frankly, Austin and Rock finished up in 2003, and even then, Austin made consistent appearances at WWE shows. Lesnar didn't quit until 2004, and even then, none of it matters, because he was kept on Smackdown, away from Triple H. So let me get this straight... Losing 2 million viewers is ok, but a company that's only had consistent television on a channel for three years getting higher ratings over time isn't? This is about Growth, Ferbian, fucking growth. All of the charts indicate that over time, while the WWE has lost fans, TNA has gained fans. You wanna know what they fucking call that, Ferbian?

I'll give you a hint.... It starts with a "G", and rhymes with "both'. Need it spelt out for you?

Spoiler

It's called fucking growth, you twit.

Thank you Tenta for reminding me of the stigma from Chris Benoit, which brings us back about 15 years prior to that. The steroid scandal, the business as a general took a large hit due to that, talent declined to WCW where Hogan was still without proper popularity mainly because he became stale, but also because of the steroid scandal. This allowed Vince McMahon to push smaller stars, Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart got a bigger push. They weren't supposed draws, but it slowly build towards another wrestling boom. And guess who build towards that, the smaller guy, Shawn Michaels.

Excuse me for a second...

[YOUTUBE]OstRBLG5n3c[/YOUTUBE]​

Right. This wrestling boom? It had nothing to do with Bret or Shawn. Bret and Shawn reaped the benefits, but if anything, business was in the toilet with both Shawn and Bret. Anyway, the Benoit case was far more damaging than anything in the steroid scandal. Not only did it bring back bad memories to 1992, a wrestler died, under Vince's watch, and it happened, at least partially, from the drugs that were found in his system. Sure, the WWE isn't all to blame, but they're going to get the most criticism, because they're the bigger name. Vince is still reeling from the bad publicity of this, and I can assure you, that bad publicity is going to cause nothing but lower numbers of viewers.

If we're then supposed to believe that Chris Benoit's incident would spark a little bit of life in another direction of WWE, the PG Era is the other direction, soon enough you could very well be expecting another wrestling boom, damn well it's about time we get another one, how long has it been? 12 years? About so.

Yeah, you keep thinking that, buddy. Face facts; the WWE has been in slow decline for years now. And it's much longer than anything they faced with the Steroid Scandal

They could go downwards, there's no denying that, I mean they're not on the verge of bankruptcy Tenta. There's always two directions to go. Back, or forth.

But they've been doing nothing but go back for, what, nine years now.

As well as there's always potential for future growth, it's arguable how much potential there is however. That's what this thread is the purpose of after all, so there's no denying that TNA has it's potential, but the potential to expand more than WWE, that's something I have yet to put my eyes on.

And how? TNA can become a national name, they can bring their tour nationwide, they can get out of the same spot. The analogy is simple; the child who goes to college, and moves out of his parent's wing, has more potential to do better things than the middle aged man who's seen his potential evaporate. The analogy is perfect for this situation.

Also WWE might not have as much international ways to expand, they got it pretty covered, but there's still numerous countries as well as cities that could present a crowd for a house-show but WWE has yet to capitalize on it

.

I'm shocked, shocked, you waited til now to talk about this. Still, yes, the WWE has to expand in foreign markets, because the well is drying up in America.

Did you know Denmark only gets one RAW episode, that is 2 weeks old, on a specific channel not everybody gets? As well as our biggest stadium could contain enough people for a little over 38 thousand people to be seated in the arena. A football arena! Think about after the sets, as well as floor seats. The crowd that could be placed inside of that arena, and WWE, as well as TNA has yet to capitalize on it.

TNA hasn't had a chance at all, really. I'm left still questioning how you can believe a WWE that's seeing a consistent, slow decline can have more potential than a TNA product that has yet to even see its best day

 

[Ferbian]

Best of luck to you, as it seems we're going to have a long day together

Oh it's gonna be a long day Tenta my friend. And this goes on for a long week. So time to get comfy inside this bunker.

Except, at this point, the WWE has concentrated its energies towards a direction, and pending Linda McMahon's venture into politics, will continue this path as long as Linda McMahon, though admittedly McMahon is going to face an uphill battle, being a Republican running in the state of Connecticut. Of course, there are other factors that led to the WWE's "PG" Ruling; we surely can't ignore the 800 pound Benoit in the room, but you make mention of him earlier, so for now, we'll put that on the back burner.

Here we go again with the whole ordeal that it's because of Linda, sure it would make sense that it's so Vince can have himself his happy little marriage. Even Billy Graham went on to spew that nonsense.

On the other hand though we do indeed have the Benoit case, the one situation that makes the most sense to me. Benoit gave the business a fuck-up of epic proportions that we're still hearing about. And that most likely changed the landscape of some things, the bans of headshots and blading. But it also makes for a better environment for the WWE. Which I'll get back to.

The programming is now child friendly, where the future lies in. I believe I once read a thread of someone comparing the eras so that it would make sense for the PG Era to be happening, because it started off with the Hulkamania era, we had the children loving Hogan, they got older and peaked in their teens with the Attitude Era, we matured a little bit and became ruthless bastards. And ultimately, we have kids - The PG Era.

Which would also mean that we're indeed in a place for growth, we're seeing new fans streaming to the product. Giving a complete new fan base that will be drawing in the ratings for years to come. Potential growth right there.

Look at the names you're conjuring up, Ferbs. Hogan, Austin, the nWo. First of all, I'm going to mind you that the nWo, initially, killed the WWE's ratings. Which proves my point; at any moment, a challenger can arise for the WWE. Look how quickly Eric took a floundering WCW, and made them viable competitors.

Sure the New World Order initially put WWE on the verge of bankruptcy, but in the end where did the New World Order also take WCW? That's right, bankruptcy. They killed themselves, therefore Vince as well as Ric Flairs description of them as the poison of wrestling.

Guess what, the poison is flowing in TNA. We might not be having the complete roster that let the poison flow through it veins, but we sure have the primary 3 out of 4 people that fucked it up. Nash, Hogan, Bischoff, with the missing Hall. Doesn't scream well for them does it now?

And sure Bischoff made WCW into viable contenders, and you mention how he had Scott and Hall coming in from WWF to create for this product to function, how long did it take for it to get build? Sure didn't take 8 months to do it now did it Tenta?

So I'm guessing by logic theory we should be a few months into the product of something that is literally gonna be tearing down WWE. Where is it? Fortune?

TNA hasn't had the chance to even put the pieces in place to begin a run against WWE. Once Bischoff had two mid card superstars from the WWE, he created a plan that, for 84 weeks, had WWE on the brink of financial bankruptcy. For all your talk of theoretically WWE reaching a new boom period, TNA can arise as a new national challenger in one fell swoop. They have the pieces together, but have really only had eight months from the Hogan signing to allow everything to gel. Furthermore, I guess I better bring this out, but the PG Era is probably the way of the future, because lookie here, the WWE is now a publicly traded company. That means instead of doing things as Vince always does, taking no hesitation and just doing things, Vince has a lot of people he has to answer to. Yes, he's the owner, but he has to take into account the Stockholders that hold a majority of his shares.

TNA has the perfect pieces to put together something that could put a viable contender up for WWE. But they're not doing it, because in the end, Vince Russo fails at booking it, as well as the leaders of TNA (Discrediting Hogan and Bischoff, they obviously know how it's done, no I'm thinking Dixie) would much rather play nice kiddies with the ECW bunch. How joyful.

And sure TNA could rise to the occasion, but WWE could also very well debut this wrestling boom. This business revolves around the concept of "Expect the unexpected". So both things could happen, hell it could happen at the same time, now it's just coming down to - Who gains the most, who gets the biggest growth?

TNA, meanwhile, isn't bound by that. As long as Spike gives TNA the thumbs up, they can produce as much adult entertainment as they want. Seeing how this is the channel that allows midget wrestling, I find it hard to believe that they're going to limit TNA, especially when TNA is already the biggest draw on Spike TV.

Yes, and they're producing the adult programming. But is it working? Is it working Tenta? Have their ratings rised, are they destroying WWE with the exact same theory of programming that WWE had in the late 90's? Absolutely not!

It's not just about the programming, the stars have to be there as well. While I had firmly believed for some time that the Hogan role could've been done by someone else if given the spot to do it. The fact of the matter is that the stars in the era, creates the era as well. Not just the product.

Also TNA might be the biggest draw, but they're still not drawing 1/3rd of the ratings WWE pulled every week. They were constantly over 3.5 each and every week with a very few exceptions. TNA therefore still has a long way to go.

Yeah... John Sena is the crab of the bunch. Look, to say Cena is a star comparable to Austin and Hogan... I'm sorry, but I want whatever shit you just got off Amsterdam, man. No, John Cena is not big as hell, especially when you compare that to the names you just did. If anything, Cena is more about the same popularity level of Bret Hart, who led the WWE during its, well, Dark Ages.

Of course John Cena is not the star that Austin and Hogan was. Hence the hesitating "..." parts. I explained this to you as well in the PM earlier.

Also I explained that it doesn't mean shit because in the end of the day, John Cena is the rating puller, he's the guy that the common fan tunes in to watch. As well as he's the baby face of the era, the top dog. The man. As well as John will be the explosive topic of this forum for the moderators to spend hours cleaning up after if he turns heel. (NOTICE - IF he turns heel, damn smarks).

Also John actually draws ratings compared to Bret Hart. It's been said that he couldn't draw, he could sell out arenas, but he didn't draw the ratings. John is drawing ratings Tenta.

That said, who are you to even assume that star can only come from the WWE? What, TNA is incapable of having that same star? You're making it out to be like the WWE is the only option for wrestlers, which quite frankly is bullshit. TNA has just as much chance of getting a wrestler over in the Impact Zone

Of course the star can't just come from the WWE. But the WWE has created the primary draws, even with that though I do not discredit the draw that Ric Flair was, he is arguably the most over guy, right behind Hulk Hogan. As well as I don't discredit a guy like A.J Styles who basically have kept TNA afloat for the most of time, as well as Sting. Both non WWE made men. And I credit that, but even with that knowledge. WWE has been holding on to the primary draws of wrestling history.

Besides Tommy Dreamer even fucked it all up last week, he said ECW and TNA resembled each other in the way that it was a place to get noticed. See that noticed. To what? WWE of course, at that time WCW as well.

And don't get me wrong I'm not screaming "TNA is a second rate promotion for people to train their craft so they can make an actual career when going to WWE" no no. But I am saying that Tommy Dreamer very well could've fucked up the views on TNA for a lot of people. Including myself.

No. No, you didn't just go there. Ok, Ferbs. I see what you're doing there; you're clearly showing the audience you have little, to absolutely no, experience in the 1980s. Because, see, if you did, you would know that Hogan's main factor for "getting over" was the fact that he played Thunder Lips in Rocky III. Yes, it led to his first departure from the WWWF, when Vince Sr. Was running the company. That said, much of Hogan's success comes from that appearence in that movie.

Also you know perfectly well I know that. But it doesn't discredit the fact that Hulk Hogan became a huge star, incredibly quickly. Therefore proving that WWE could very easily create a superstar. Austin is as well a proof that WWE could create superstars like they wanted to as much as they want to. Look at The Rock, they saw something was wrong, changed it. KABOOM, stardom! Ringmaster was wrong, changed it. Austin 3:16!

He could have just as easily become a superstar in the AWA, had Verne Gange not treated him like crap, who knows how history would have played out. You've clearly never watched AWA programming; Hogan was just as much a draw there as he would be his first title run in the WWE. As a matter of fact, Vince intended to actually use Tony Atlas before Hulk Hogan fell into his lap, because he didn't want to to work for the AWA.

I never watched AWA no. With exception of a few Shawn Michaels matches as The Rockers. And yes god knows where wrestling could be without Hogan, but then we probably wouldn't be discussing WWE today, we'd be discussing AWA. And even they would most likely still be having the key point to make themselves continual growth, riding the popularity of Hogan.

McMahon piggeybacked off the success of the AWA's character, not a fucking creation of his own. Vince created the name "Hulkamania", and otherwise, everything else was done by Hogan, the AWA, and Rocky III. So, yeah, feel free to keep showing your ignorance here.

That's only partially true Tenta, and you know that. He did very well piggyback his way to the top through Hogan's popularity, but with the wrong gimmick everything could've gone wrong as well. Hogan became the perfect gimmick at that time, and Vince created it.

And Austin proves that Vince could create a star, what did Austin have before WWE? Nothing, absolutely nothing. What did The Rock have before WWE? a mildly known name to the business at best. Without Vince McMahon, god knows where Austin and The Rock would be today.

Yeah, if you remember correctly, Ferbian, Stone Cold wasn't always Stone Cold. Vince was bantering on about The Ringmaster, and when Steve Austin suggested his character take a more "cold" personality, the WWE offered him ideas like "Chilly McFreeze" and "Ice Dagger", man.

I know perfectly well of Austin's Ringmaster gimmick, but tell me Tenta, when did Austin debut in WWE? That's right, late 95. When did Austin become World champion? that's right, early 98. Less than 3 years, my theory stands tall.

But then again god knows where Austin would've been had it not been for Triple H. Perhaps Triple H could've carried the company at that given time, had the popularity of Austin, he sure had the keys to do it through D-Generation X. Triple H just went the other way, became the most hated heel of the era.

Which brings me to something we agree on, that stars are completely random, and you can never tell what's going to click with the fans. What I'll tell you is that when there's a superstar that's shown to the national public, that superstar tends to get over. And that's the case with stars like Pope Dinero, Mr. Anderson.

And that's why ROH never becomes anything. But that's for another bed time story. Because they don't have the tools to go national with a television deal, therefore the talent is nothing when they go to WWE unless you're Bryan Danielson. Who, still unknown to a large base of the common WWE universe, got more popular than alcohol at a teen party.

What, all WWE products, you say? Well, Hogan came from the AWA, and Austin from WCW. Guess they were WWE products, too? You need to get off this stigma of who the WWE "created". Stars create themselves, and right now, TNA has the ability to have the better name recognition, and arguably the deeper talent roster. AJ Styles, Samoa Joe, Kurt Angle (Who is a TNA product), even Jeff Hardy, who was doing his whole face paint schtick in TNA for about three years, so don't bother calling him just a "WWE" product.

Well in theory their legacies were made in WWE, therefore I would call them WWE products. Or perhaps you want another word for it? How about WWE made? Because Austin sure as hell were made the man he is today in WWE, the same goes for Hogan. If you ask the common star of today who knows slightly of Austin, as well as Hogan, he most likely wouldn't know jack shit of Hogan in AWA, or Austin in WCW. Because their stints with the promotion mattered so little compared to what else they have accomplished.

Stars create themselves is only one half of it Tenta. You know very well that with the right booking, the right handling, you're gonna get over. But you sure as hell won't get over if you're left to swim the sea by yourself. Just ask Dolph Ziggler, awful booking in letting the ball drop on him considering he never became Intercontinental champion. But he sure as hell could've created himself because he's one hell of an in-ring talent.

Yeah, again, you're making the WCW-WWE war to be domination when the WWE finally decided to take out the WCW. Again, complete revisionist history, man. For 84 Weeks, WCW kicked WWE's ass three ways to Sunday, to the point that they almost financially folded. You can't ignore that, though you tried, oh, you're trying really hard to. It wasn't like Vince did it all by himself, and by his choice. He had plenty of times where Eric and WCW just had a better product. And eventually, the better product wins out.

I'm not ignoring it. But the fact of the matter is that wrestling had a boom in the Attitude Era, a boom that could happen again. I know perfectly well WWE was declining in one specific era, but in that period of time Austin and The Rock was being created to take over, eventually it would've happened no matter what.

The better product wins out perhaps yes, but it's more of the overall product. By the end WCW was an awful product, WWE was the better one. And even in the 95 - 97 period WWE was putting on a decent product, it wasn't perfect but it sure was decent. I mean who can deny D-Generation X? The fundamental brick that build the Attitude Era. Vince saw it was good, and went with it.

TNA, at this point, offers better wrestling, and longer matches than Raw, Smackdown, and NXT. We won't both to go into ratings, though you will soon enough, but the point is, stupid skits aside, TNA offers a product for WWE fans that have become jilted by the fact that matches rarely last past four minutes on Raw.

Better wrestling perhaps. Awful awful product though. It's been said numerous times on this forum. Inconsistent storylines that halts in the middle of everything, face and heel turns on a monthly basic. Twists that shouldn't be there. Everything booking wise except for the in-ring action is awful.

But if that's the better product, I mean why don't we just tell Vince it's over now then? Why try?

Somewhat of a boom? They almost caused the WWE to go into Bankruptcy, Ferbian. Get your head out of WWE's ass, and get yourself to a book or something.

Oh, you're not really going to go there, are you? Let me check.

*Goes to see the Cena turns Heelz argument*

Yes, yes you did. Look, we even discussed it, but within eight years of WCW, they were still doing Hulkamania. The nWo would be coming soon, but you're right, name power is important, as well as time to get out that name. TNA hasn't even had the chance to tour nationally, and when they do, you'll find that plenty more markets are going to be open to TNA's programming.

Look I don't like it either, but it's a proved fact that a large base of the wrestling fans would explode on a Cena heel turn, how many TNA fans can't honestly say they went to TNA because of Cena, as well as the missing blood? Cena is one part of it solved.

I don't wanna see it neither, but in the end, it's an available resource for another wrestling boom.

Also sure TNA might not have had the time to tour nationally, but what in the hell is TNA waiting for then? I sure as hell am clueless while scratching my head profoundly over this matter. Clear it up for me Tenta.

No, see, you don't get it Ferbian. We, the IWC? We're a small community of fans, really. We don't really matter much within the grand context of things. What Vince has to cater to is the mainstream if he wants to expand. What you're talking about right now, Ferbian, is pandering to the IWC, which would diminish the profits and revenue of the WWE. How, you ask? Merchandise. You can't forget how important that shit is, and John Cena is Vince's cash cow. Randy Orton's merchandise may sell, but it's absolutely nowhere near Cena's revenue. So yeah, the idea to turn him heel? Really oughta reconsider that argument. Not only is it pandering to a smaller crowd, who whether we like to admit it, doesn't mean much, but it's taking away a huge source of revenue, in merchandise.

Sure the IWC is a small base, but have you heard the crowds when John Cena is on? If not, let me remind you.

[YOUTUBE]Qnl-08GzeNU[/YOUTUBE]

If that doesn't say a large fanbase that is gonna be quite happy when Cena turns heel, I honestly don't know what does. And because of that, a John Cena heel turn might work. I don't want to see it because I believe John is a better face, but I can't hold the world Tenta, I simply cannot do it.

[YOUTUBE]5joRxwoeQM4[/YOUTUBE]

And don't get me wrong I sure as hell know John Cena's merchandises sells far superior to Randy Orton, but Randy is incredibly over and could probably draw the ratings just a little bit by himself in that manner, John Cena might still be getting the merchandises and such here and there, as well as peaking the ratings. It's a worthy try, not that I wanna see it, but it's worth a shot if everything turns into a shit storm of.. well, shit.

Yes, yes, ratings argument, blah blah blah. Look, quite frankly, Spike is a smaller, less established channel than RAW is. Working with the fact that TNA doesn't have a name brand like the WWE yet, and the ratings are really an asinine argument. Besides, the point of this discussion isn't what both companies have done, it's what both companies can do. Stick to the main argument, Ferbian.

Yet Spike managed to have RAW drawing decent ratings during their time together. You've seen the tables already. And in the end ratings is the essential for a companies survival, a programs survival. Don't you see the fact that if TNA starts drawing lower ratings, it's off the air? TNA has been having lows even in the last 8 months. What did the draw at one point? Didn't they draw a 0.5? Pathetic. And sure superstars drew a 0.21 rating at one point, but this is Impact (Premiere show) vs Superstars (4th rate awful show).

If the ratings dies, the company does as well. Isn't that the primary thing of this business? Ratings? Isn't this why WCW got killed? I mean RAW was still drawing about the same ratings of Smackdown when they were in the 95-96 period. So they were fine. So no potential growth if you're company is down the drain.

Again, have only had eight months to draw, and in the grand scheme of things, the fact that in four years of sustained television with those names, and even less for most of them, and the ratings have consistently gone up. Are they starting to plataeu? You could argue that, but it's a horrible argument. You also have to remember,Hogan isn't wrestling, Flair rarely wrestles, so it isn't as though these are active, consistent wrestlers for TNA. So using that whole "he's the biggest draw" argument doesn't work, if he isn't wrestling.

Yet he still appears consistently on the screen. Isn't that what is supposed to draw? appearances? I mean didn't the crowd go crazy for Jeff Hardy (Who isn't drawing either) in his first TNA appearance, even if he didn't wrestle, he just hunted someone with a chair.

In other words, Ferbian dodges the argument. You're ignoring the entire basis of it. TNA has a stronger market overseas, it really does. I don't know why you're being so casual about that, because it's somewhere of more potential growth for both WWE and TNA. Overseas numbers are going to be huge, it's why the WWE is wetting its feet in Japan and Mexico, though that will never work, as few wrestlers work the styles Japanese and Mexican fans have been raised on. Japanese fans love Puro, Mexicans love lucha libre, and the WWE offers neither. TNA, on the other hand, offers similar styles, that the fans can get into.

Well move the company then. It doesn't matter if they got a bigger marked in one specific country that their company doesn't reside in. It's like saying "Oh well, nobody is paying to watch Real Madrid in Spain, but at least they sell out the Italian arenas" Yay! Happy time. The fanbase is in the WWE, it's where the majority of the ratings will be pulled in.

Haven't you noticed how the majority of British wrestlers or United Kingdom wrestlers for that sake becomes the heels of the WWE? Because of nationalism, do you really think the majority of TNA ratings will go up because "Oh yay the ratings are high in England, let's bow in the dust, we're not worthy oh lord of wrestling"

Uh huh.... Impact Zone, buddy. What do you think I've been arguing so long.

It's Damn Real said it himself, get out of the Impact Zone. How long have TNA existed? Aren't we nearing the 8-9 year mark? And they're still stuck. They're still more of a territorial promotion. How long again did it take for Vince to make WWF world wide?

Yeah, good job with that.... MCU Field is a baseball stadium, and minor league at that. That was a sold out crowd for a wrestling venue of that building, which can typically hold 7,000 for a baseball game, and pending alterations made for a wrestling event, is probably less. If anything, all you've proven is that there is a definite interest in the TNA product outside of Orlando. So yeah, good job making my point for me.

It's still an incredibly small crowd for a wrestling promotion to be pulling. It would just show that they'd be struggling their ass off to fill Madison Square Garden for example, a place where WWE sells out, the majority of times. Sure there's times where they have to cover up a bit of the sections and all that. But in the end, they're sure as hell drawing the bigger crowds compared to TNA. I mean what is the biggest attendance TNA has had at a Pay Per View?

Their biggest drawing Pay Per View in 2010 was Lockdown, it drew a little over 3000 fans to watch. At an arena that can hold over 9000 (A little over 6000 at half-house concerts). Impressive right?

Wrestlemania drew over 72 thousand people. And sure it's Wrestlemania, then let's look at one of their more regular Pay Per Views. Biggest attendance was a little over 17 thousand people at Elimination Chamber, kinda makes TNA look minor doesn't it?

Not going to bother, as all opinions are subjective, and this is a matter of opinion. What can't be argued is that TNA started on a tiny network in Fox Sports Net, and garnered a .3. They worked themselves in a position now where they're a recognized name in the business, to the point that they're now seen as a national product.

Sure they're going somewhere. But it doesn't mean they're the better chances of expanding beyond where they are now. They could very well be stuck, if we look into how it's been going over the past 8 months, I sure as hell wouldn't be placing any bets on them improving.

WWE on the other hand is drawing better ratings slowly, The Nexus is going strong to improve those ratings. And they're pushing new talent. What exactly is TNA doing? Pushing A.J Styles a little bit, MCMG are the tag team champions. Not a new team, but about time. Abyss is getting somewhat of a push. All stars that could be doing something else. And giving pushes to a guy like Jay Lethal, Matt Morgan, Desmond Wolfe. But what are 2 out of those 3 doing? Oh yeah.

And again, we're talking potential to become, we aren't talking about what already has happened. Yes, TNA has made a mistake going to Mondays. It's over, and TNA has worked themselves back to the way they used to be.

Damn straight it was a mistake. And that just shows my part of it. I believe it was Bischoff that said it, Monday night is where wrestling resides. It's where you draw the viewers. It's an obvious fact to where WWE RAW as well as WCW Nitro were drawing their ratings from. The Mondays. And it didn't work for TNA. How am I supposed to believe they can further themselves then if they had to go back to where they once were?

WWE has been holding a firm spot in that position for almost 20 years. They've had their ups and downs, and they will certainly continue to rise eventually.

Era's change so quickly. It's not even 10 years ago since the Attitude Era actually ended. And we've been through 2 extra during that period of time. Ruthless aggression and that thing we had in the middle of it. Not sure what to call it. Who knows, the next era for WWE could be grand. It could be small, same goes for TNA. But the chances looks to be in WWE's half of the field.

Now, there's a proven interest in other markets, especially larger wrestling markets, and in 5-10 years, TNA has the potential to be able to perform shows on a regular touring circuit. For doing that in 13 years of production, with no backing from a billionaire like Ted Turner, that is remarkable, because that means they'll have gone from teritorry to national market in span of time that was only beaten by ECW. Seeing as how they have executives to run the show, instead of Paul Heyman, I find it hard to believe that they'll go belly under like ECW.

They might not have the backing of billions of dollars. But they sure have the backing of a few millions. How do you expect them anyelse to afford the size of the rosters they have been drawing in? It'd be ridiculous to think there's not quite a wallet behind the company.

Sure hats off and all that to TNA going somewhat national with their promotion during a span of 8 years. Big deal? It's still nowhere near the point where it should be. TNA's product is still not gonna be expanding any time soon, because they have been showing very little signs of improvement in the last 8 months. Hogan might have spiked the rating about 0.1. Great, they're going places. But it sure as hell ain't going far.

WWE on the other hand is also slowly starting to pull in talent that can attract the casual viewer, Otunga is known outside of the business, same with The Miz, at least WWE has the deal going with the interaction of fans through appearances and things like that. What does TNA have? oh yeah, at least Dixie is on Twitter

What's your point here? Wade Barrett is a draw? Let's wait a while before we can annoint him that. Of course he's going to get the home reaction, what the fuck did you expect? It isn't about having British Wrestlers, it's about being part of a free TV Package, something you can;t argue with, so you're trying to shift the focus.

Well the ratings have been going up slowly. If you can call it anything else than having the ability to draw, I sure as hell would love to hear it.

Sure the free TV package will work for the fans, but will it work for the company? They're not pulling in any money through that, money is essential to make it internationally as well as properly nationally.

Good product + proper talent x money = Success.

TNA = Proper wrestling, awful product, proper talent, mediocre money sum = Not going anywhere soon.

But when put into the context of the numbers you're about to crunch earlier, it really doesn't look great. Besides, you've been deriding TNA for their smaller ratings, so I find it a tad hypocritical you're going to say the WWE, losing about 40% of it's audience from 2001 alone, let alone the Attitude Era, is a good thing.

I'm not saying it's a good thing. But I've been saying that wrestling does have it's low points. Any company has declining periods. WWE retaliated and reformed themselves (I feel like I've said that before, oh yes I have). What happened when they did that? Ratings peaked.

And that's what they're doing, by allowing Styles, Jay Lethal, Beer Money, and the like to get the rub from these superstars. That's really all the legends are good for, and the fans realize this. They don't expect Hogan and the like to be out there wrestling every week, as you seem to expect.

That's about the only thing I can agree with what TNA is doing, getting the rub off these talent, but does Styles really need it? He was just fine before Flair, sure he said himself it helped on his confidence, but now we just got a lousy imitation of a second rate Flair. Yes I said it, he's not even a worthy imitation of the real Flair. Jay Lethal is good at cutting promos and I take the hat off for that, I mean I marked out for his promo with Flair, but did he get anything out of wrestling him? He's over 60 years old for the love of god. He damn well be happy he's in decent shape for his age. I mean we wouldn't want a real incident of this would we?

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2v2jt_ric-flair-gets-a-heart-attack-on-ni_sport (Yes I don't know how to put Dailymotion video's in here)

Look, what you seem to not get is that it's a lesser known channel, and I'm not sure how you feel the signings have done nothing. Again, TNA went from about a .3 in its inception to 1.3 now. Those signings didn't help... Where, again?

TNA wasn't pulling 0.3 before the signings Tenta. I'm talking about all the bullshit signings we were seeing at January 4th. In the end of the day none of them has done anything but give a bit of rub off to some talent. It's older talent where 75% of them haven't been wrestling for years get in the ring to rub it off with some younger talent that in the end aren't going anywhere.

I'm not 100% certain about the ratings TNA were drawing in the months up to Hogan's appearance in 2010, but I am pretty confident it wasn't below 1.0 for the most of times. And if it were, it weren't critically low. So the signings didn't spike the ratings that much, for the most of it I'm sure the hardcore fans got more turned off by it.

Look, I'm not going to lie... I hate the ECW angle. Always have, and always will, so I'm going to just concede it. I believe everything I'm saying, but I'd be lying in saying I believe in this ECW angle. I don't. I find this to be trying to piggeyback of ECW's success, and I hate every moment of it. That said, it will probably be done in a month, and is really harmless.

I don't like it either. You've seen my reply in the Mark Madden - Your opinions thread. I simply don't like it because I know TNA won't benefit from it. You're welcome to read up on it in the thread, I won't go ahead and reside all the things because there's quite a few. But let's just say the ECW fans won't be pleased.

Oh, yeah, you did. Um.... Ferbian, are you on crack? How can you say they did consistent business?! 2003 was easily the worst year of business in the WWE, from any fucking standpoint. They lost 2 million consistent viewers in that period. It's bullshit to use the "Rock, Austin, and Lesnar" quit shit, because frankly, Austin and Rock finished up in 2003, and even then, Austin made consistent appearances at WWE shows. Lesnar didn't quit until 2004, and even then, none of it matters, because he was kept on Smackdown, away from Triple H.

Sure it might be awful years, but they still drew the ratings. In the end of the day it was drawing ratings on the very channel that TNA is on right now. Doing shit compared to WWE. The talent did in matter of a fact decline, they weren't consistent appearances. So to say they were still around, enough to affect the ratings (Brock excluded in this case) is bullshit.

So let me get this straight... Losing 2 million viewers is ok, but a company that's only had consistent television on a channel for three years getting higher ratings over time isn't? This is about Growth, Ferbian, fucking growth. All of the charts indicate that over time, while the WWE has lost fans, TNA has gained fans. You wanna know what they fucking call that, Ferbian?

I'm n ot saying it's okay in any way. I'm saying that it matters little for TNA's rating improvements if they're not even holding a damn candle to the ratings WWE was drawing in their period on the SAME DAMN CHANNEL.

Right. This wrestling boom? It had nothing to do with Bret or Shawn. Bret and Shawn reaped the benefits, but if anything, business was in the toilet with both Shawn and Bret. Anyway, the Benoit case was far more damaging than anything in the steroid scandal. Not only did it bring back bad memories to 1992, a wrestler died, under Vince's watch, and it happened, at least partially, from the drugs that were found in his system. Sure, the WWE isn't all to blame, but they're going to get the most criticism, because they're the bigger name. Vince is still reeling from the bad publicity of this, and I can assure you, that bad publicity is going to cause nothing but lower numbers of viewers.

Are you honestly gonna stand there and tell me that D-Generation X did not push for the Attitude Era because Vince McMahon saw what benefits D-Generation X's profane jokes benefited alongside the fans as well as the fact that USA Network fucking LOVED D-Generation X after their little campaign skit?

I sure as hell would call that pushing potential Tenta.

And sure the Benoit case damaged more for WWE than the Steroid Scandals, but in the end the basics of the scenario is very similar. Something bad for a company, getting to the media, a lot of media problems, popularity declining. Same damn thing.

Also lower ratings all the time indefinitely just because of Benoit? Please, give me a break. The ratings declined sure, but they won't continue to fall due to something that happened almost 3 damn years ago. And if it is god damn the fans are hypocrites. To yell up "OH NOES HE DIED, BY GAWD WHAT SHALL I DO " after 3 years, that's just awful.

And Vince implemented a lot of things to push the media away from him, he implemented all the bans of chair shots, as well as implementing the Wellness Policy. How can you say after all that that WWE is still under the flashlight of the public for Benoit? I mean god damn I loved Benoit myself but I sure as hell wouldn't give him that much attention. In the end he never did cut it in the main event.

The ratings have been improving, especially ever since the Guest Host implementation, I don't know the specific numbers but I believe the ratings went up with between 10-15% averagely during the first 6 months of time. So to say WWE is going downwards slowly is bullshit Tenta, BULLSHIT.

Yeah, you keep thinking that, buddy. Face facts; the WWE has been in slow decline for years now. And it's much longer than anything they faced with the Steroid Scandal

Perhaps it did. I mean ratings around Benoits final days were about the 3.8 - 4.3 ratings. The ratings didn't really decline that badly over the following months and 2008, they were still above 3 for the most of it. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Sure the decline was there, but while I can't find any numbers on it, I'm in doubt that the steroid scandal did not in fact hurt the business pretty heavily.

But they've been doing nothing but go back for, what, nine years now.

Nowhere in my argument have I said that TNA is definitely going down the drain, but they sure a hell aren't going forth with noteworthy speed.

And how? TNA can become a national name, they can bring their tour nationwide, they can get out of the same spot. The analogy is simple; the child who goes to college, and moves out of his parent's wing, has more potential to do better things than the middle aged man who's seen his potential evaporate. The analogy is perfect for this situation.

Did you completely oversee the part where I mentioned that WWE as well still have countries to reach out to. There's plenty of countries WWE could expand to and do house-shows and therefore bring in the ratings to improve if tv deals improve as well. Sure it might be a jackass to deal with having to watch RAW live in Denmark for example seeing as it starts at 2 AM. But even with that there's other air times, we're used to not get everything live as well as episodes at time, but the day after or something could help.

I'm shocked, shocked, you waited til now to talk about this. Still, yes, the WWE has to expand in foreign markets, because the well is drying up in America.

Arguable. There's still a fanbase to reach out to in America, sure they got their hand on the common fan that doesn't expand their views. But there's also fans that can be drawn in through Ring of Honor, hell fans could very well be stolen from TNA with the right booking or product.

But I agree, WWE, as well as TNA needs to expand across the borders, and not just god damn Britain (Sorry you British people). I mean didn't the Australian fans complain on this forum they didn't get a RAW taping, only house-shows? I think so. That's a marked to expand as well.

TNA hasn't had a chance at all, really. I'm left still questioning how you can believe a WWE that's seeing a consistent, slow decline can have more potential than a TNA product that has yet to even see its best day

And how do we know they haven't already seen their best day? I mean they could very well turn straight around if Kurt Angle, A.J Styles or Sting, god knows anybody that draws some kind of rating to TNA could very well determine the future of TNA simply by retiring.

I firmly do believe that WWE still has days left in their pocket. They have had their bad days, and you know very well how they were turned around. That's why I'm confident in WWE, if the bad times get too much, WWE knows what it takes to turn them around. But does TNA?

 

[Tenta]

Here we go again with the whole ordeal that it's because of Linda, sure it would make sense that it's so Vince can have himself his happy little marriage. Even Billy Graham went on to spew that nonsense

Well, it's just common sense, Ferbian. By placing a PG Label, that means that those that are looking for edgier, more raunchy television are left out of the mix. Read; all of the same people that came from the Attitude Era; gone. What's so hard to understand that.

On the other hand though we do indeed have the Benoit case, the one situation that makes the most sense to me. Benoit gave the business a fuck-up of epic proportions that we're still hearing about. And that most likely changed the landscape of some things, the bans of headshots and blading. But it also makes for a better environment for the WWE. Which I'll get back to.

But even then, the WWE has been on a slow decline, Ferbian. It has been since 2001, really. Still, let's go on, as you seem to agree that Benoit, to some extent, is going to injure the WWE's attempt at expansion.

The programming is now child friendly, where the future lies in. I believe I once read a thread of someone comparing the eras so that it would make sense for the PG Era to be happening, because it started off with the Hulkamania era, we had the children loving Hogan, they got older and peaked in their teens with the Attitude Era, we matured a little bit and became ruthless bastards. And ultimately, we have kids - The PG Era.

Except, Ferbian, those same people that were watching in the Attitude Era? They ain't watching now. Wrestling isn't cool, and for a short while from 1998 on in, you could say Wrestling was the "In" thing. Let's be honest, Ferbian; what is the most important demographic in all of television? Why, that would be the 18-49 Demographic. Sure, some whispers that the over 50 is really the new demographic that advertisers are gearing towards, and even if that is the case, The TNA Brand has an edge over WWE, either by signing the names in which the over 50 demographic can relate to, or by producing raunchy television, which relates to the interest of the 18-49 Demographic. You can sell me all you want that the kids are the way to go, but at the end of the day, advertisers all know that the major demographic is, and always will be, the 18-49.

Which would also mean that we're indeed in a place for growth, we're seeing new fans streaming to the product. Giving a complete new fan base that will be drawing in the ratings for years to come. Potential growth right there.

Hmm.... Streaming, you say? You know something, you raise up another point I forgot to bring up; Online Streaming of television shows. For years, the WWE has been resistant to advertising on the web, and quite frankly, now we live in an age in which the digital views almost mean as much as Television views, because it's another way to advertise programming. TNA, over time, has proven to be the best way, with their deal with Youtube and their main site, to keep fans interested, and to keep advertisers paying. Digital and online programming is the way of the future, in which TNA has developed long before the WWE, and yet has plenty of room for expansion, should they choose to entertain it.

Sure the New World Order initially put WWE on the verge of bankruptcy, but in the end where did the New World Order also take WCW? That's right, bankruptcy. They killed themselves, therefore Vince as well as Ric Flairs description of them as the poison of wrestling.Guess what, the poison is flowing in TNA. We might not be having the complete roster that let the poison flow through it veins, but we sure have the primary 3 out of 4 people that fucked it up. Nash, Hogan, Bischoff, with the missing Hall. Doesn't scream well for them does it now?

Sigh. The old "Hogan's got an Ego" argument. Would make total sense, except at this point, Hogan hasn't been in all but one match, and hasn't really gotten involved in the ring. Why should he care about his own ego, when he's not even wrestling. At present time, Nash was involved putting over Eric Young to us, and in the mid card. Can't see how this is relative to TNA, and beside that, you're also failing to note that there is an executive, Dixie Carter, who has surrounded herself with people who know the business, and has the head on her shoulders to allow the talent to get over themselves. Hogan hasn't been burying anybody, nor has Flair. If anything, all they've done while getting to TNA is put over young talent. Not sure where you're getting this "poison" from.

Also, the Death of WCW, mind you, was due to plenty of other issues. How about the merger of AOL-Time Warner? Or, how about that Turner Broadcasting refused to air WCW programming? At this point, Spike has expressed absolutely nothing but support for TNA, and so has Panda Energy. So, no, this isn't exactly like WCW, really.

And sure Bischoff made WCW into viable contenders, and you mention how he had Scott and Hall coming in from WWF to create for this product to function, how long did it take for it to get build? Sure didn't take 8 months to do it now did it Tenta?

he also had a built in angle, and the ability to take the biggest babyface in the history of wrestling, and turn him heel. The gimmick was based solely off the fact that Hall and Nash, implied or otherwise, came from WWE, and were invading. Besides that, WCW had been a known quanitity, and had begun touring for years across the nation. TNA still hasn't been allowed this chance.

So I'm guessing by logic theory we should be a few months into the product of something that is literally gonna be tearing down WWE. Where is it? Fortune?

Now, what you should expect is that in a couple of years, once TNA has had a chance to realluy become a National Promotion, for them to rival the WWE. Are you not getting what I'm saying? TNA has yet to even produce House Shows on a regular basis, and getting out of Florida is a rarity. You can't tell me you don't see the benefit of moving out of the Impact Zone, which could logically happen soon. Hell, we discuss it later.

TNA has the perfect pieces to put together something that could put a viable contender up for WWE. But they're not doing it, because in the end, Vince Russo fails at booking it, as well as the leaders of TNA (Discrediting Hogan and Bischoff, they obviously know how it's done, no I'm thinking Dixie) would much rather play nice kiddies with the ECW bunch. How joyful.

Well, I think we agree on Russo. God knows we both hate him. But again, potentially that can happen, in which TNA already does have the talent to perform. Besides that, there still is a sense of interest in ECW, so why not bring it out for a month? Again, it'll probably be harmless, and though I'm going to hate, it probably will attract some fans over to their product.

And sure TNA could rise to the occasion, but WWE could also very well debut this wrestling boom. This business revolves around the concept of "Expect the unexpected". So both things could happen, hell it could happen at the same time, now it's just coming down to - Who gains the most, who gets the biggest growth?

No, it boils down to, realistically, who has the most to gain in five to ten years. The WWE, really, doesn't have much more to gain, aside from reliving this visioned "boom" you speak of. And you know what, I hate to tell you this, Ferbian, but without competition, there won't be a boom. For there to be a "wrestling boom", there typically has to be a viable competitor to make things more interesting, and to offer choices. For every WWE, there's a WCW, or an NWA. The WWE can't just create a boom by themselves, they need a counterpart to push them, and the numbers don't lie. When there is viable competition, the numbers stack up exponentially greater. When there isn't, the WWE suffers, as well. Thus, if WWE is going to have any sense of a "boom", they need for TNA to grow, which with the talent in place, they can. Anything the WWE achieves is going to be the status quo for the WWE, and not real potential growth. TNA, on the other hand, has nowhere to go but up, and you know this to be true.

Yes, and they're producing the adult programming. But is it working? Is it working Tenta? Have their ratings rised, are they destroying WWE with the exact same theory of programming that WWE had in the late 90's? Absolutely not!

Again, you're taking the ratings of a show that's been around for over seventeen years, and comparing them to a show that's been for three. Raw never started out as a ratings juggernaut. As a matter of fact, with the WWE, ratings were probably likely in the 1's for when it debuted in 93. I can tell you that through 1995, the ratings were neighboring the two's, but even then, the WWE was an established program, while TNA about six years ago. Imagine if someone said they were going to start a wrestling promotion, without any history to that promotion. It's realistically get the numbers TNA is getting. So expecting TNA to do better than they are ratings wise is frankly a little delusional.

It's not just about the programming, the stars have to be there as well. While I had firmly believed for some time that the Hogan role could've been done by someone else if given the spot to do it. The fact of the matter is that the stars in the era, creates the era as well. Not just the product.

Also TNA might be the biggest draw, but they're still not drawing 1/3rd of the ratings WWE pulled every week. They were constantly over 3.5 each and every week with a very few exceptions. TNA therefore still has a long way to go.

And where does WWE go? I mean, you pretty much summed up my point; TNA wins this debate, because they have so much more growth they can potentiall achieve, both in finding new markets, which they have, and developing the product that they want, which they have.

Of course John Cena is not the star that Austin and Hogan was. Hence the hesitating "..." parts. I explained this to you as well in the PM earlier.

Yeah, but even putting them on equal grounding... Eh, I feel bad uttering Cena in the same sentence as Hogan and Austin. Though you'll explain that...

Also I explained that it doesn't mean shit because in the end of the day, John Cena is the rating puller, he's the guy that the common fan tunes in to watch. As well as he's the baby face of the era, the top dog. The man. As well as John will be the explosive topic of this forum for the moderators to spend hours cleaning up after if he turns heel. (NOTICE - IF he turns heel, damn smarks).

Yet you argued earlier that turning heel would be the best way to go about the WWE product?...

Look, Cena is the defacto Ratings grabber, I agree, but that said, it's been pretty much the same numbers, with no real increase in viewers since about 2007. Cena's good for merchandise, but at this point, he's not neccesarily that great a draw.

Also John actually draws ratings compared to Bret Hart. It's been said that he couldn't draw, he could sell out arenas, but he didn't draw the ratings. John is drawing ratings Tenta.

John is marginally better than Bret. Here, take the numbers of Bret's Fifth Title Reign, before the Screwjob.

Spoiler

August 4, 1997 2.7
August 11, 1997 2.9
August 18, 1997 3.2
August 25, 1997 Not On
September 1, 1997 Not On
September 8, 1997 2.2
September 15, 1997 2.6
September 22, 1997 2.4
September 29, 1997 2.7
October 6, 1997 3.0
October 13, 1997 2.3
October 20, 1997 2.9
October 27, 1997 2.3
November 3, 1997 2.6
November 10, 1997 3.4

Cena has been doing better number recently, but he earnestly has been closer to about 3.1, so that 3.5 number you're talking about is really somewhat of an anomoly, caused by what's supposedly the hot angle, The Nexus.

Of course the star can't just come from the WWE. But the WWE has created the primary draws, even with that though I do not discredit the draw that Ric Flair was, he is arguably the most over guy, right behind Hulk Hogan. As well as I don't discredit a guy like A.J Styles who basically have kept TNA afloat for the most of time, as well as Sting. Both non WWE made men. And I credit that, but even with that knowledge. WWE has been holding on to the primary draws of wrestling history.

Except for recently. WWE just let the biggest star of 2009 walk out the door in Jeff Hardy. Yes, he was in fact the biggest star, and typically the most over at any arena. They also let Kurt go, another way over talent, they let RVD go, they let Mr. Anderson. Face it... Whether you like it or not, more top talent is coming to TNA

Besides Tommy Dreamer even fucked it all up last week, he said ECW and TNA resembled each other in the way that it was a place to get noticed. See that noticed. To what? WWE of course, at that time WCW as well.

And don't get me wrong I'm not screaming "TNA is a second rate promotion for people to train their craft so they can make an actual career when going to WWE" no no. But I am saying that Tommy Dreamer very well could've fucked up the views on TNA for a lot of people. Including myself.

Eh, I think that's reading too much into it. I think that's him more trying to rally support for TNA. Still, that's more an opposing view point thing, really.

Also you know perfectly well I know that. But it doesn't discredit the fact that Hulk Hogan became a huge star, incredibly quickly. Therefore proving that WWE could very easily create a superstar. Austin is as well a proof that WWE could create superstars like they wanted to as much as they want to. Look at The Rock, they saw something was wrong, changed it. KABOOM, stardom! Ringmaster was wrong, changed it. Austin 3:16!

Except the superstars needed to put more input into the gimmicks, and as it stands, I'm failing to see any changes to wrestler's gimmicks.

I never watched AWA no. With exception of a few Shawn Michaels matches as The Rockers. And yes god knows where wrestling could be without Hogan, but then we probably wouldn't be discussing WWE today, we'd be discussing AWA. And even they would most likely still be having the key point to make themselves continual growth, riding the popularity of Hogan.That's only partially true Tenta, and you know that. He did very well piggyback his way to the top through Hogan's popularity, but with the wrong gimmick everything could've gone wrong as well. Hogan became the perfect gimmick at that time, and Vince created it.

I mean, perhaps, but what did he have Hulk do? He had him go out and talk about how big he was in Hollywood Pictures, and talk about the Three Demandments. Sure, Vince marketed it correctly, but eventually, Vince is going to lose a little more luster. He already has, and has really backed off to some extent of the shows. Who knows, for all we can tell, Vince may be dead in five years. The thought that Vince can help out the company this much for this long is a little asinine. And once Vince does retire, or go away, who takes control of the company?

And Austin proves that Vince could create a star, what did Austin have before WWE? Nothing, absolutely nothing. What did The Rock have before WWE? a mildly known name to the business at best. Without Vince McMahon, god knows where Austin and The Rock would be today.

Again with my Whoa, Whoa, Whoa[/B. Austin had nothing? Really, Ferbian? He was really nothing before he came to WWE? Well, let's look at it. He was a great worker and part of the best tag teams in WCW before he was released, pretty much because of the politics of keeping young people down. And you think this promo had no talent to it whatsoever?

[YOUTUBE]Cj-2G-9y0bI[/YOUTUBE]​

Right, get out of here with that weak shit, man. Austin was going to be a star, because he has the talent. Rock, he had the talent, too. And again, you're mentioning guys who had the talent to become superstars.

I know perfectly well of Austin's Ringmaster gimmick, but tell me Tenta, when did Austin debut in WWE? That's right, late 95. When did Austin become World champion? that's right, early 98. Less than 3 years, my theory stands tall.

What, that Steve busted his ass in WWE, and was finally allowed to be himself, and finally given Creative leeway with his gimmick? What theory?

But then again god knows where Austin would've been had it not been for Triple H. Perhaps Triple H could've carried the company at that given time, had the popularity of Austin, he sure had the keys to do it through D-Generation X. Triple H just went the other way, became the most hated heel of the era.

How did Triple H help? By fucking up with The Curtain Call? Triple H didn't do anything but become Shawn's lackey. Sure, he was the leader of DX, but when you had the most over tag team in the history of the WWE working with you, X-Pac who caused controversy by being the first guy to leave WCW when it was doing business, of course DX would get over? Triple H, during his DX run, really wasn't as much as people make him out to be.

And that's why ROH never becomes anything. But that's for another bed time story. Because they don't have the tools to go national with a television deal, therefore the talent is nothing when they go to WWE unless you're Bryan Danielson. Who, still unknown to a large base of the common WWE universe, got more popular than alcohol at a teen party.

He got popular because of his own talent, and because of how well he worked. Do you know how many people on here were slobbering on Bryan Danielson before NXT? Hell, some people, no a large amount of them, wanted him to beat DDP in the Wrestlezone Tournament. You make it out like the WWE is solely responsible for talent getting over, which just ain't that true.

Well in theory their legacies were made in WWE, therefore I would call them WWE products. Or perhaps you want another word for it? How about WWE made? Because Austin sure as hell were made the man he is today in WWE, the same goes for Hogan. If you ask the common star of today who knows slightly of Austin, as well as Hogan, he most likely wouldn't know jack shit of Hogan in AWA, or Austin in WCW. Because their stints with the promotion mattered so little compared to what else they have accomplished.

Fair enough, but again, if you look, you see the talent there. They just needed the right push, and Vince gave it.

Stars create themselves is only one half of it Tenta. You know very well that with the right booking, the right handling, you're gonna get over. But you sure as hell won't get over if you're left to swim the sea by yourself. Just ask Dolph Ziggler, awful booking in letting the ball drop on him considering he never became Intercontinental champion. But he sure as hell could've created himself because he's one hell of an in-ring talent.

Again, politics and such. Rey didn't want to drop the title, and it left him screwed. Even then, Zigggler doesn't have that great a talent. He's good in the ring, but he certainly doesn't have much charisma, and lacks the promo skills to really get the job done.

I'm not ignoring it. But the fact of the matter is that wrestling had a boom in the Attitude Era, a boom that could happen again. I know perfectly well WWE was declining in one specific era, but in that period of time Austin and The Rock was being created to take over, eventually it would've happened no matter what.

I doubt that it would have been as one sided as you make it out to be, but ok, I'll let you havr this one.

The better product wins out perhaps yes, but it's more of the overall product. By the end WCW was an awful product, WWE was the better one. And even in the 95 - 97 period WWE was putting on a decent product, it wasn't perfect but it sure was decent. I mean who can deny D-Generation X? The fundamental brick that build the Attitude Era. Vince saw it was good, and went with it.

Well, no, the better talent was just there. WWE had some pretty bad television, too. Remember the Artist Formerly Known as Goldust? How about "Choppy Choppy Your Pee Pee!" The WWE was filled with cringeworthy product, but because they had Rock, Mankind, Austin and Vince, people watched.

Better wrestling perhaps. Awful awful product though. It's been said numerous times on this forum. Inconsistent storylines that halts in the middle of everything, face and heel turns on a monthly basic. Twists that shouldn't be there. Everything booking wise except for the in-ring action is awful.

But if that's the better product, I mean why don't we just tell Vince it's over now then? Why try?

Again, fair point, but one employee sacked, and for all you know, the better talent wins out. TNA is really hard to follow. You get rid of Russo, and I assure you, more people will watch, and accept, TNA.

Look I don't like it either, but it's a proved fact that a large base of the wrestling fans would explode on a Cena heel turn, how many TNA fans can't honestly say they went to TNA because of Cena, as well as the missing blood? Cena is one part of it solved.

I don't wanna see it neither, but in the end, it's an available resource for another wrestling boom.

Also sure TNA might not have had the time to tour nationally, but what in the hell is TNA waiting for then? I sure as hell am clueless while scratching my head profoundly over this matter. Clear it up for me Tenta.

Until they've built up a national name to tour? Look, it'll take a while, and they have to get talent used to it, but it's starting. They've done House Shows in Tennessee, Ohio, New York, all of the like, so it isn't like they don't want to, they just have to build up the ability to get 9-10,000 people to fill up an arena, and at the rate which they're going, it could be sooner rather than later.

Sure the IWC is a small base, but have you heard the crowds when John Cena is on? If not, let me remind you.

[YOUTUBE]Qnl-08GzeNU[/YOUTUBE]

If that doesn't say a large fanbase that is gonna be quite happy when Cena turns heel, I honestly don't know what does. And because of that, a John Cena heel turn might work.

L.O.L.

Let me get this straight. Did you not think I was going to ignore the fact this was a show that occurred in England? Dude, Come on now. He's going against Chris Jericho, who's mad over overseas. Did you really not expect me to catch that?

Next time, check your videos before you just type "John Cena boo'ed" into Youtube.

And don't get me wrong I sure as hell know John Cena's merchandises sells far superior to Randy Orton, but Randy is incredibly over and could probably draw the ratings just a little bit by himself in that manner, John Cena might still be getting the merchandises and such here and there, as well as peaking the ratings. It's a worthy try, not that I wanna see it, but it's worth a shot if everything turns into a shit storm of.. well, shit.

Ratings are not worth giving up Merchandising. It'd be like slaughtering a cow that always feeds you milk just so you could have a porterhouse steak. Short term would be great, but the long term affects mean less money.

Yet Spike managed to have RAW drawing decent ratings during their time together. You've seen the tables already. And in the end ratings is the essential for a companies survival, a programs survival. Don't you see the fact that if TNA starts drawing lower ratings, it's off the air? TNA has been having lows even in the last 8 months. What did the draw at one point? Didn't they draw a 0.5? Pathetic. And sure superstars drew a 0.21 rating at one point, but this is Impact (Premiere show) vs Superstars (4th rate awful show).

Against a three hour Raw, which was a Draft, and oh by the way, Impact was taped. Pretty sure that should solve your questions. And again, I'd love to see you say Spike is worth the same kind of value as the USA Network. WWE moved away from Spike, to rejoin USA even with how contentious that relationship is, because ratings weren't going well, and they blamed Spike.

If the ratings dies, the company does as well. Isn't that the primary thing of this business? Ratings? Isn't this why WCW got killed? I mean RAW was still drawing about the same ratings of Smackdown when they were in the 95-96 period. So they were fine. So no potential growth if you're company is down the drain.

Hmm... Not buying this argument. WCW didn't die because of ratings, they died because Turner didn't want them anymore. This idea that ratings, especially in this war, is the end all be all in this war is absurd. You're asking way too much of TNA if you think they can match WWE's production.

Yet he still appears consistently on the screen. Isn't that what is supposed to draw? appearances? I mean didn't the crowd go crazy for Jeff Hardy (Who isn't drawing either) in his first TNA appearance, even if he didn't wrestle, he just hunted someone with a chair.

true, but you can't expect for people to be soleyl interested in appearances. At least not as much as when he was wrestling.

Well move the company then. It doesn't matter if they got a bigger marked in one specific country that their company doesn't reside in. It's like saying "Oh well, nobody is paying to watch Real Madrid in Spain, but at least they sell out the Italian arenas" Yay! Happy time. The fanbase is in the WWE, it's where the majority of the ratings will be pulled in. Haven't you noticed how the majority of British wrestlers or United Kingdom wrestlers for that sake becomes the heels of the WWE? Because of nationalism, do you really think the majority of TNA ratings will go up because "Oh yay the ratings are high in England, let's bow in the dust, we're not worthy oh lord of wrestling"

Except that worldwide marketing is something that's damn important. It pays to have a market in Europe, especially when the Euro goes for more than a Dollar. Again, the point is that there's more of an interest in TNA in Europe than the WWE, so how can you defeat that? You need to find a way to express how the WWE can reach out to global markets. Oh, by the way, something you said, the part I bolded, sounds a lot like something else I've heard at some point.

Spoiler

"I'm going to tell you something right now that you will absolutely not agree with, but I've been a wrestling fan my whole life and I will live and die by this. It's hard enough, believe me, I write this shit, it is hard enough to get somebody over. You will never ever, ever, ever, ever see the Japanese wrestlers or the Mexican wrestlers over in American mainstream wrestling. I'm an American. If I'm watching wrestling here in America, I don't give a shit about a Japanese guy. I don't give a shit about a Mexican guy. I'm from America, and that's what I want to see."

 

[Tenta]

It's Damn Real said it himself, get out of the Impact Zone. How long have TNA existed? Aren't we nearing the 8-9 year mark? And they're still stuck. They're still more of a territorial promotion. How long again did it take for Vince to make WWF world wide?

About thirty years, piggybacked off his father’s companies success. And granted, they benefited from the NWA, and the AWA, with working deals before Vince turned his back on other promoters. You know, if we’re getting really technical on matters

It's still an incredibly small crowd for a wrestling promotion to be pulling. It would just show that they'd be struggling their ass off to fill Madison Square Garden for example, a place where WWE sells out, the majority of times. Sure there's times where they have to cover up a bit of the sections and all that. But in the end, they're sure as hell drawing the bigger crowds compared to TNA. I mean what is the biggest attendance TNA has had at a Pay Per View?

Admittedly about 6000, when it still in its infancy stage. That said, did you notice my last few words? TNA still needs time to develop.

Their biggest drawing Pay Per View in 2010 was Lockdown, it drew a little over 3000 fans to watch. At an arena that can hold over 9000 (A little over 6000 at half-house concerts). Impressive right? Wrestlemania drew over 72 thousand people. And sure it's Wrestlemania, then let's look at one of their more regular Pay Per Views. Biggest attendance was a little over 17 thousand people at Elimination Chamber, kinda makes TNA look minor doesn't it?

The fact that you’re trying to compare the WWE’s numbers based off TNA’s is actually a tad pathetic. Look, again, this asking how much each company can realistically grow. I’m expecting WWE to do those types of numbers, and so is everyone else. The only option that has left to grow is TNA.

Sure they're going somewhere. But it doesn't mean they're the better chances of expanding beyond where they are now. They could very well be stuck, if we look into how it's been going over the past 8 months, I sure as hell wouldn't be placing any bets on them improving. WWE on the other hand is drawing better ratings slowly, The Nexus is going strong to improve those ratings. And they're pushing new talent. What exactly is TNA doing? Pushing A.J Styles a little bit, MCMG are the tag team champions. Not a new team, but about time. Abyss is getting somewhat of a push. All stars that could be doing something else. And giving pushes to a guy like Jay Lethal, Matt Morgan, Desmond Wolfe. But what are 2 out of those 3 doing? Oh yeah.

One’s feuding with a legend, the other now in a program with the biggest star of 2009, Heff Hardy and Mr. Anderson. Desmond’s getting buried sure, but that’s more of a backstage thing. That said, the WWE isn’t nearly as impressive as you make It out to be. The Nexus is said to be the best thing in wrestling in some time, and the numbers aren’t exactly eye popping. Plenty of the talent isn’t ready to be pushed yet, a la Kofi, Jack Swagger, and the like.

WWE has been holding a firm spot in that position for almost 20 years. They've had their ups and downs, and they will certainly continue to rise eventually.

Well, not typically, as for the past nine years, it’s been consistently mediocre business, really.

Era's change so quickly. It's not even 10 years ago since the Attitude Era actually ended. And we've been through 2 extra during that period of time. Ruthless aggression and that thing we had in the middle of it. Not sure what to call it. Who knows, the next era for WWE could be grand. It could be small, same goes for TNA. But the chances looks to be in WWE's half of the field.

And why? Exactly what can the WWE grow with? They haven’t done much growing at all? It’s not this spontaneous thing you claim it to be, it takes talent. And right now, I prefer TNA’s roster to WWE’s.

Sure hats off and all that to TNA going somewhat national with their promotion during a span of 8 years. Big deal? It's still nowhere near the point where it should be. TNA's product is still not gonna be expanding any time soon, because they have been showing very little signs of improvement in the last 8 months. Hogan might have spiked the rating about 0.1. Great, they're going places. But it sure as hell ain't going far.

I’m sorry, the fuck? Why are you expecting TNA to be rivaling WWE for viewers again? You say eight years as if it’s that long, but the truth is, it really isn’t.

WWE on the other hand is also slowly starting to pull in talent that can attract the casual viewer, Otunga is known outside of the business, same with The Miz, at least WWE has the deal going with the interaction of fans through appearances and things like that. What does TNA have? oh yeah, at least Dixie is on Twitter

Ferbian, look this right here? This is why you get called out for fluff, and it’s fucking true, man. Otunga and Miz known outside the WWE? For what, they were reality show celebrities. By that venture, I could say Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Rob Van Dam and the like are known much better outside the wrestling business than either Miz or Otunga. So yeah, nice fucking try with that.

Well the ratings have been going up slowly. If you can call it anything else than having the ability to draw, I sure as hell would love to hear it.

Probably the angle? Wade Barrett by himself has really only proven he’s the best of FCW. Congratulations, you’re proving nothing again. Oh wait, I’m sorry, I have to swallow this bite of a Fluffernutter I’m having.

Sure the free TV package will work for the fans, but will it work for the company? They're not pulling in any money through that, money is essential to make it internationally as well as properly nationally.

Good product + proper talent x money = Success.

TNA = Proper wrestling, awful product, proper talent, mediocre money sum = Not going anywhere soon.

You act as if that can’t change. The product is mostly soured by a writing team, and again, we both know what must happen for that to be rectified.

I'm not saying it's a good thing. But I've been saying that wrestling does have it's low points. Any company has declining periods. WWE retaliated and reformed themselves (I feel like I've said that before, oh yes I have). What happened when they did that? Ratings peaked.

To reach what level again they haven’t achieved? Right now they’re still working themselves out of the hole of 2003, or should I say, actually staying consistently in there.

TNA wasn't pulling 0.3 before the signings Tenta. I'm talking about all the bullshit signings we were seeing at January 4th. In the end of the day none of them has done anything but give a bit of rub off to some talent. It's older talent where 75% of them haven't been wrestling for years get in the ring to rub it off with some younger talent that in the end aren't going anywhere.

It’s a progressive growth over time, and no, you can’t ignore that when TNA started, before any free agent signings, they were pulling .3s. As for your theory, it’s more of a long term thing, and you won’t see immediate results. Which is why we’re allowed to discuss 5-10 years down the line. You’re making this seem as though TNA has to grow immediately. The question, if you’re reading correctly, is five to ten years down the line.

I'm not 100% certain about the ratings TNA were drawing in the months up to Hogan's appearance in 2010, but I am pretty confident it wasn't below 1.0 for the most of times. And if it were, it weren't critically low. So the signings didn't spike the ratings that much, for the most of it I'm sure the hardcore fans got more turned off by it.

To answer your question, they were mainly struggling with .7s, .8s, and the like. So yes, Hogan has seen some results, at the least.

Sure it might be awful years, but they still drew the ratings. In the end of the day it was drawing ratings on the very channel that TNA is on right now. Doing shit compared to WWE. The talent did in matter of a fact decline, they weren't consistent appearances. So to say they were still around, enough to affect the ratings (Brock excluded in this case) is bullshit. I'm n ot saying it's okay in any way. I'm saying that it matters little for TNA's rating improvements if they're not even holding a damn candle to the ratings WWE was drawing in their period on the SAME DAMN CHANNEL.

Again, you’re trying to make it sound as though WWE and TNA have to be equal to win this debate. They don’t, all it has to be is that TNA has to grow more than the WWE. And I truly believe that TNA has more way to go than the WWE does, as the WWE has really nothing left to grow upon.

Are you honestly gonna stand there and tell me that D-Generation X did not push for the Attitude Era because Vince McMahon saw what benefits D-Generation X's profane jokes benefited alongside the fans as well as the fact that USA Network fucking LOVED D-Generation X after their little campaign skit?

You can call it all you want, I’m sticking by my guns. Sure, DX was good, but Steve was the draw of the Attitude Era, and even before that. Shawn by himself is nowhere near a draw, and if you want the evidence, the ratings for 1996 and buy rates are available, I can put them in the next post if you want.

And sure the Benoit case damaged more for WWE than the Steroid Scandals, but in the end the basics of the scenario is very similar. Something bad for a company, getting to the media, a lot of media problems, popularity declining. Same damn thing.Also lower ratings all the time indefinitely just because of Benoit? Please, give me a break. The ratings declined sure, but they won't continue to fall due to something that happened almost 3 damn years ago. And if it is god damn the fans are hypocrites. To yell up "OH NOES HE DIED, BY GAWD WHAT SHALL I DO " after 3 years, that's just awful.

No, but it is a publicity nightmare, one in which the ratings may not be drawn to, but the way the WWE does their product certainly is. This cloud of Benoit isn’t going away, and the WWE has to change their product to accommodate that.
And Vince implemented a lot of things to push the media away from him, he implemented all the bans of chair shots, as well as implementing the Wellness Policy. How can you say after all that that WWE is still under the flashlight of the public for Benoit? I mean god damn I loved Benoit myself but I sure as hell wouldn't give him that much attention. In the end he never did cut it in the main event.

The ratings have been improving, especially ever since the Guest Host implementation, I don't know the specific numbers but I believe the ratings went up with between 10-15% averagely during the first 6 months of time. So to say WWE is going downwards slowly is bullshit Tenta, BULLSHIT.

Yeah, three weeks of higher numbers. Whoo! Still doesn’t account for the million viewers lost in this year alone.

Did you completely oversee the part where I mentioned that WWE as well still have countries to reach out to. There's plenty of countries WWE could expand to and do house-shows and therefore bring in the ratings to improve if tv deals improve as well. Sure it might be a jackass to deal with having to watch RAW live in Denmark for example seeing as it starts at 2 AM. But even with that there's other air times, we're used to not get everything live as well as episodes at time, but the day after or something could help.

I’ve still yet to see anything about Mexico, which the WWE is really marketing right now, Japan, or any of the like. It’s nice to hear what’s going on in Denmark, but if you’re going to win this debate, you better look up the WWE’s intended expansion in Japan, China, Mexico, India, and the like.

Arguable. There's still a fanbase to reach out to in America, sure they got their hand on the common fan that doesn't expand their views. But there's also fans that can be drawn in through Ring of Honor, hell fans could very well be stolen from TNA with the right booking or product.

But there’s plenty more to gain for TNA, that the WWE has already done. There’s more potential growth set for TNA.

And how do we know they haven't already seen their best day? I mean they could very well turn straight around if Kurt Angle, A.J Styles or Sting, god knows anybody that draws some kind of rating to TNA could very well determine the future of TNA simply by retiring.

Very unlikely. TNA seems committed to the future, while the WWE seems fit to just being ok with what they have.

I firmly do believe that WWE still has days left in their pocket. They have had their bad days, and you know very well how they were turned around. That's why I'm confident in WWE, if the bad times get too much, WWE knows what it takes to turn them around. But does TNA? Sure they're going somewhere. But it doesn't mean they're the better chances of expanding beyond where they are now. They could very well be stuck, if we look into how it's been going over the past 8 months, I sure as hell wouldn't be placing any bets on them improving.

Again, the question is who has the more potential to grow. Sure, TNA could be stuck, but the numbers are increasing over an extended period of time, which means it probably isn’t “stuck”.

Sure it might be awful years, but they still drew the ratings. In the end of the day it was drawing ratings on the very channel that TNA is on right now. Doing shit compared to WWE. The talent did in matter of a fact decline, they weren't consistent appearances. So to say they were still around, enough to affect the ratings (Brock excluded in this case) is bullshit.

Weren’t consistent? One was a GM, and was on Raw just about every week. No, it isn’t bullshit, you just think of a way to defend that ratings were significantly lower when on Spike.

I firmly do believe that WWE still has days left in their pocket. They have had their bad days, and you know very well how they were turned around. That's why I'm confident in WWE, if the bad times get too much, WWE knows what it takes to turn them around. But does TNA?

Probably, they’ve had pretty hard times already, and have done nothing but grow over time. That’s why the answer has to be TNA.

 

[Ferbian]

I took the liberty of cutting a bit out. Most noticeably the second paragraph in your first reply (Benoit where we agree to some extend)

Well, it's just common sense, Ferbian. By placing a PG Label, that means that those that are looking for edgier, more raunchy television are left out of the mix. Read; all of the same people that came from the Attitude Era; gone. What's so hard to understand that.

And how do you know exactly that all the Attitude Era guys are gone? That's right. You don't. The PG label are just fine to produce a proper product. KB has said it so many times "In what PG labeled movie do you find women in bikini's, people fighting and the use of weapons"? People are just ridiculous to scream up because there's no blood and the environment for wrestlers are much better.

Except, Ferbian, those same people that were watching in the Attitude Era? They ain't watching now. Wrestling isn't cool, and for a short while from 1998 on in, you could say Wrestling was the "In" thing. Let's be honest, Ferbian; what is the most important demographic in all of television? Why, that would be the 18-49 Demographic. Sure, some whispers that the over 50 is really the new demographic that advertisers are gearing towards, and even if that is the case, The TNA Brand has an edge over WWE, either by signing the names in which the over 50 demographic can relate to, or by producing raunchy television, which relates to the interest of the 18-49 Demographic. You can sell me all you want that the kids are the way to go, but at the end of the day, advertisers all know that the major demographic is, and always will be, the 18-49.

Perhaps wrestling is on the way down in popularity in general. But how in the world do you expect TNA to be progressing then as well if wrestling is dying out? The demographic viewer wants to see edgy produced wrestling. Well how in the world is it that TNA is not pulling the ratings that supports these 18-49 year old viewers?

I'm telling you Tenta, children is the future of wrestling. And WWE is slowly dragging them in this very moment. What is TNA doing? keeping them away from wrestling with the edgy and violent product. Sure wrestling is supposed to be violent, but it's obviously not working for TNA.

Hmm.... Streaming, you say? You know something, you raise up another point I forgot to bring up; Online Streaming of television shows. For years, the WWE has been resistant to advertising on the web, and quite frankly, now we live in an age in which the digital views almost mean as much as Television views, because it's another way to advertise programming. TNA, over time, has proven to be the best way, with their deal with Youtube and their main site, to keep fans interested, and to keep advertisers paying. Digital and online programming is the way of the future, in which TNA has developed long before the WWE, and yet has plenty of room for expansion, should they choose to entertain it.

A deal WWE has also pulled in now. And the neither one of them should be doing that very thing. TNA is giving quality matches away on their web-cast system. WWE is just re-airing what has already been shown. TNA is showing stuff that could very well have done better on the actual show. How is that gonna be progressive? It sure as hell doesn't invite the people to start watching it on the television, the one place where the ratings are gonna come in. So unless you put ratings on the Internet streaming sides, it's not gonna work very well.

Sigh. The old "Hogan's got an Ego" argument. Would make total sense, except at this point, Hogan hasn't been in all but one match, and hasn't really gotten involved in the ring. Why should he care about his own ego, when he's not even wrestling. At present time, Nash was involved putting over Eric Young to us, and in the mid card. Can't see how this is relative to TNA, and beside that, you're also failing to note that there is an executive, Dixie Carter, who has surrounded herself with people who know the business, and has the head on her shoulders to allow the talent to get over themselves. Hogan hasn't been burying anybody, nor has Flair. If anything, all they've done while getting to TNA is put over young talent. Not sure where you're getting this "poison" from.

There's no "Hogan's got an ego" argument here Tenta. I'm just saying that WCW got put out of business by the very guys that are in TNA right now. These very guys haven't done much to put over the actual guys that would make sense. I mean is Matt Morgan not in the dog house right now? He sure as hell screams the future to me. He should have been something in WWE even.

Yes Dixie Carter is surrounded by brains. Shame she's not using hers to do something proper with it all. ECW Tenta, E-C-Fucking-W.

Also, the Death of WCW, mind you, was due to plenty of other issues. How about the merger of AOL-Time Warner? Or, how about that Turner Broadcasting refused to air WCW programming? At this point, Spike has expressed absolutely nothing but support for TNA, and so has Panda Energy. So, no, this isn't exactly like WCW, really.

Sure it had other issues. But primarily it was due to our beloved Russo and the primary talent of NWO. They worked in the start (When Russo wasn't there). But in the end, it didn't work at all. And Russo is in TNA. I remember him in a shoot interview saying he was in WCW for 9 months, so he couldn't possibly have run them out of business in those 9 months. It's clear he's dazed by his own madness. How is that not gonna influence TNA eventually?

he also had a built in angle, and the ability to take the biggest babyface in the history of wrestling, and turn him heel. The gimmick was based solely off the fact that Hall and Nash, implied or otherwise, came from WWE, and were invading. Besides that, WCW had been a known quanitity, and had begun touring for years across the nation. TNA still hasn't been allowed this chance.

Hogan was stale as shit during the months leading up to his heel turn. It wasn't hard to turn him when he was associated with what you even went as far as to call incredibly over heels. They were over as heels because the people thought they were still employed by WWF at that time. Not so hard to turn a stale babyface heel now is it?

And the fact that WCW was touring and all that. How does that spell out for TNA then, WCW even managed to do it earlier than TNA has managed. That's real progressive right there Tenta, bravo.

Now, what you should expect is that in a couple of years, once TNA has had a chance to really become a National Promotion, for them to rival the WWE. Are you not getting what I'm saying? TNA has yet to even produce House Shows on a regular basis, and getting out of Florida is a rarity. You can't tell me you don't see the benefit of moving out of the Impact Zone, which could logically happen soon. Hell, we discuss it later.

I've said it before Tenta, TNA have been having plenty of chances to go national. What is it that YOU are not getting? Of course I'm seeing the potential of moving out of the Impact Zone, but have TNA done it? No, because they're too damn stupid to realize the potential in it themselves. How in the hell do you expect them to realize it in the near future? I sure don't. They should have done it earlier, but they did not.

Well, I think we agree on Russo. God knows we both hate him. But again, potentially that can happen, in which TNA already does have the talent to perform. Besides that, there still is a sense of interest in ECW, so why not bring it out for a month? Again, it'll probably be harmless, and though I'm going to hate, it probably will attract some fans over to their product.

Still interest in ECW? Are you out of your mind Tenta? Are you really? How much interest is there really left over for these people? It sure as hell haven't spiked the ratings, ECW remains to be an god awful product that while it revolutionized the business, has no purpose still existing. TNA trying to capitalize on something that shouldn't exist in the first place? Classy.

No, it boils down to, realistically, who has the most to gain in five to ten years. The WWE, really, doesn't have much more to gain, aside from reliving this visioned "boom" you speak of. And you know what, I hate to tell you this, Ferbian, but without competition, there won't be a boom. For there to be a "wrestling boom", there typically has to be a viable competitor to make things more interesting, and to offer choices. For every WWE, there's a WCW, or an NWA. The WWE can't just create a boom by themselves, they need a counterpart to push them, and the numbers don't lie. When there is viable competition, the numbers stack up exponentially greater. When there isn't, the WWE suffers, as well. Thus, if WWE is going to have any sense of a "boom", they need for TNA to grow, which with the talent in place, they can. Anything the WWE achieves is going to be the status quo for the WWE, and not real potential growth. TNA, on the other hand, has nowhere to go but up, and you know this to be true.

Sure, without the competition there's no need to further expand. Simply to thrive, WWE has thrived very well and always will be doing just that. And even if TNA was to grow into a competition for WWE. Where in the world does it state that WWE does not have the potential to rise above it with more growth and knock TNA right down the pit of failure it's slowly boiling in right now? It's improving I get that, but please god tell me you've paid attention to the people on this forum. Not just the WWE mark, but the actual TNA fans. The very people that hate half the product they're producing anyway. How in the WORLD is that positive?

Again, you're taking the ratings of a show that's been around for over seventeen years, and comparing them to a show that's been for three. Raw never started out as a ratings juggernaut. As a matter of fact, with the WWE, ratings were probably likely in the 1's for when it debuted in 93. I can tell you that through 1995, the ratings were neighboring the two's, but even then, the WWE was an established program, while TNA about six years ago. Imagine if someone said they were going to start a wrestling promotion, without any history to that promotion. It's realistically get the numbers TNA is getting. So expecting TNA to do better than they are ratings wise is frankly a little delusional.

iMPACT has been around for almost 6 years Tenta. And the show is still pulling the same ratings as a show that has been around for less than a year, NXT. How is that anything even remotely positive to the product that TNA is putting forth, especially when there's a lot of hate for the current product NXT is putting forth with the awful challenges?

The ratings between iMPACT and RAW was very different during the 95's and now. RAW was still pulling above a 2.0 rating, they were pulling more of a Smackdown rating averagely. TNA is still nowhere near Smackdown even. Perhaps if they wanna compete they should go compete with NXT, I just fear they'd loose even there.

And where does WWE go? I mean, you pretty much summed up my point; TNA wins this debate, because they have so much more growth they can potentiall achieve, both in finding new markets, which they have, and developing the product that they want, which they have.

Markets: Something WWE could very well be doing as well. WWE is not aired in every damn country of the world, nor are they touring in every of those countries. Expansion is potent as ever.

Product: They can develop their product like they want it to, WWE practically can as well. TNA just fails to make it a good product, WWE does make a good product.

Yet you argued earlier that turning heel would be the best way to go about the WWE product?...

Look, Cena is the defacto Ratings grabber, I agree, but that said, it's been pretty much the same numbers, with no real increase in viewers since about 2007. Cena's good for merchandise, but at this point, he's not neccesarily that great a draw.

No it's not the best way to go. It's a potential way to go if WWE wants to do progress, I argued this with Slyfox yesterday, the potential is there, the right storyline however is needed. Just like with Hogan's heel turn. The potential was there, and the right storyline was given.

Also there's 5-10 years to improve this very thing. There's no saying that WWE isn't gonna be debuting a guy in 1-2 years that will Stone Cold stunner the ratings through the roof. The potential is there Tenta, it's right under your nose.

John is marginally better than Bret. Here, take the numbers of Bret's Fifth Title Reign, before the Screwjob.

Spoiler

August 4, 1997 2.7
August 11, 1997 2.9
August 18, 1997 3.2
August 25, 1997 Not On
September 1, 1997 Not On
September 8, 1997 2.2
September 15, 1997 2.6
September 22, 1997 2.4
September 29, 1997 2.7
October 6, 1997 3.0
October 13, 1997 2.3
October 20, 1997 2.9
October 27, 1997 2.3
November 3, 1997 2.6
November 10, 1997 3.4

Cena has been doing better number recently, but he earnestly has been closer to about 3.1, so that 3.5 number you're talking about is really somewhat of an anomoly, caused by what's supposedly the hot angle, The Nexus.

The ratings John are pulling are averagely 0.7-0.9 higher in point. How is that marginally better? And even with the fact that The Nexus might be pulling the final 0.4 is still a good sign, because Wade Barrett is in there, Wade is the future. If Wade can draw, who's saying the potential for him to become the bigger heel of the company, or perhaps even a big draw for the company in the future? The chances are right under your nose as well.

Except for recently. WWE just let the biggest star of 2009 walk out the door in Jeff Hardy. Yes, he was in fact the biggest star, and typically the most over at any arena. They also let Kurt go, another way over talent, they let RVD go, they let Mr. Anderson. Face it... Whether you like it or not, more top talent is coming to TNA

The biggest star perhaps. But how come he's not drawing ratings then? That would obviously scream "awful".

RVD was let go because he had to deal with a wife that was suffering from cancer, he practically retired.

Kurt Angle couldn't get time off to heal injuries. It was a mistake yes, but TNA hasn't truly improved through Kurt Angle.

Anderson I've always found overrated. Injury prone.

More talent might be moving to TNA, but they're not affecting the improvement of the product now are they?

Eh, I think that's reading too much into it. I think that's him more trying to rally support for TNA. Still, that's more an opposing view point thing, really.

Most likely is. I saw it as a potential thing that could damage TNA though.

Except the superstars needed to put more input into the gimmicks, and as it stands, I'm failing to see any changes to wrestler's gimmicks.

But does that automatically mean that WWE can't create a star with time though? Something could go wrong with one of the currently active wrestlers. Or again we could utilize the fact that there's 5-10 years to make this change, and if WWE debuts Alberto Del Rio for example, realizes there's something wrong, and in 1-2 years he's the most over thing in WWE to date (Stretching it I know, but chances are there).

I mean, perhaps, but what did he have Hulk do? He had him go out and talk about how big he was in Hollywood Pictures, and talk about the Three Demandments. Sure, Vince marketed it correctly, but eventually, Vince is going to lose a little more luster. He already has, and has really backed off to some extent of the shows. Who knows, for all we can tell, Vince may be dead in five years. The thought that Vince can help out the company this much for this long is a little asinine. And once Vince does retire, or go away, who takes control of the company?

Sure Vince is backing down and all that just a little bit, and he could very well be dead in 5-10 years (Chances aren't massive, considering he's only nearing 65). And who's to take over then? Triple H and Stephanie have been discussed, the chances are there. Triple H has a damn great mind for the business, who's to say he couldn't very well create the next big thing?

Again with my Whoa, Whoa, Whoa[/B. Austin had nothing? Really, Ferbian? He was really nothing before he came to WWE? Well, let's look at it. He was a great worker and part of the best tag teams in WCW before he was released, pretty much because of the politics of keeping young people down. And you think this promo had no talent to it whatsoever?

Nothing compared to what he had in WWE Tenta. He wasn't really known to the public before he went to WWE. He wasn't really that over in ECW or in WCW.

And sure the promo was decent and all. It showed potential and all that. But in the end it didn't bring him anywhere, he didn't accomplish anything in ECW now did he? In WCW he did, sure, but he still wasn't half the talent, or half as over as he was in WWE after his 3:16 promo.

Right, get out of here with that weak shit, man. Austin was going to be a star, because he has the talent. Rock, he had the talent, too. And again, you're mentioning guys who had the talent to become superstars.

Yes they had the talent. But they became something thanks to Vince, The Rock for all I know could've been nothing without that heel turn. Austin could've been nothing without the gimmick change. And you know that.

What, that Steve busted his ass in WWE, and was finally allowed to be himself, and finally given Creative leeway with his gimmick? What theory?

The theory that Vince creates stars that revolutionizes the business, and he creates them within very little time.

How did Triple H help? By fucking up with The Curtain Call? Triple H didn't do anything but become Shawn's lackey. Sure, he was the leader of DX, but when you had the most over tag team in the history of the WWE working with you, X-Pac who caused controversy by being the first guy to leave WCW when it was doing business, of course DX would get over? Triple H, during his DX run, really wasn't as much as people make him out to be.

Yeah by fucking up the Curtain Call. It could've very well have ment that Triple H was the future of the business, and Austin wasn't gonna be the future, because he probably wouldn't have had the chance to cut the promo that made him what he became.

Triple H could've very well have accomplished things that would've helped the business during his time with D-Generation X, he did after all help Shawn into building what became the Attitude Era, don't deny it Tenta. Shawn and Triple H slowly build towards it.

He got popular because of his own talent, and because of how well he worked. Do you know how many people on here were slobbering on Bryan Danielson before NXT? Hell, some people, no a large amount of them, wanted him to beat DDP in the Wrestlezone Tournament. You make it out like the WWE is solely responsible for talent getting over, which just ain't that true.

That's what I said, Bryan Danielson got over as one of the few people that got over through ROH before he arrived. WWE doesn't solely get talent over, but they sure as hell are a large factor in it.

Fair enough, but again, if you look, you see the talent there. They just needed the right push, and Vince gave it.

Yes sure. But wouldn't that mean that Vince then knows how it functions to create stars? Or are you gonna completely overlook the fact that you just said it yourself?

Again, politics and such. Rey didn't want to drop the title, and it left him screwed. Even then, Zigggler doesn't have that great a talent. He's good in the ring, but he certainly doesn't have much charisma, and lacks the promo skills to really get the job done.

He's not incredibly awful there. He does have some potential, at least he's not Morrison. But yes the politics was awful. But Ziggler was still left to swim the big shark filled sea by himself because of it.

Well, no, the better talent was just there. WWE had some pretty bad television, too. Remember the Artist Formerly Known as Goldust? How about "Choppy Choppy Your Pee Pee!" The WWE was filled with cringeworthy product, but because they had Rock, Mankind, Austin and Vince, people watched.

RUSSO!!!! Simple. WWE did indeed have some awful things, but just like I've always said about the TNA and WWE Comparison right now. Some slightly awful things in WWE overshadowed by some great things will automatically leave WWE thought highly of. A lot of shit in TNA overshadowing the great stuff TNA produces = TNA gets the shit bucket.

Again, fair point, but one employee sacked, and for all you know, the better talent wins out. TNA is really hard to follow. You get rid of Russo, and I assure you, more people will watch, and accept, TNA.

That is very true, because we all know Russo is awful as everything. And that is one of the primary things I believe that if TNA does not change it (Because I doubt TNA will do that, Dixie doesn't have the brain to realize it), that will stop the progress TNA could have. But even with that it'd be a slow progress, and WWE could easily dominate above it.

Until they've built up a national name to tour? Look, it'll take a while, and they have to get talent used to it, but it's starting. They've done House Shows in Tennessee, Ohio, New York, all of the like, so it isn't like they don't want to, they just have to build up the ability to get 9-10,000 people to fill up an arena, and at the rate which they're going, it could be sooner rather than later.

Also it could not. I mean look at the "drastic" improvements that TNA has (not) made in the last 8 months. Their ratings have barely improved. They got their asses kicked trying to compete with the very promotion you're trying to debate against. How is that ever gonna help them improve in a manner that WWE could not kick their asses with?

L.O.L.

Let me get this straight. Did you not think I was going to ignore the fact this was a show that occurred in England? Dude, Come on now. He's going against Chris Jericho, who's mad over overseas. Did you really not expect me to catch that?

Next time, check your videos before you just type "John Cena boo'ed" into Youtube.

[YOUTUBE]CLqnqaLoZjY[/YOUTUBE]

Good enough for you?

Ratings are not worth giving up Merchandising. It'd be like slaughtering a cow that always feeds you milk just so you could have a porterhouse steak. Short term would be great, but the long term affects mean less money.

For now it might, but what in 5-10 years if WWE has another money cow to draw the merchandises on, and the ratings drawing from a Cena heel turn? Again, I don't like it. But it's a shot worth taking if it means better ratings.

Against a three hour Raw, which was a Draft, and oh by the way, Impact was taped. Pretty sure that should solve your questions. And again, I'd love to see you say Spike is worth the same kind of value as the USA Network. WWE moved away from Spike, to rejoin USA even with how contentious that relationship is, because ratings weren't going well, and they blamed Spike.

Not sure whether it was during the draft. Still a low rating nonetheless.

The Spike vs USA Network is one thing I can't truly argue on Tenta, you know I'm not American. But the fact that WWE barely has done any improvement in the ratings when they did in fact move. As well as the fact that TNA is STILL drawing 1/3rd of the WWE ratings, or lower, on an average basic. That's still nothing that spells "woop-ti-do go us!"

Hmm... Not buying this argument. WCW didn't die because of ratings, they died because Turner didn't want them anymore. This idea that ratings, especially in this war, is the end all be all in this war is absurd. You're asking way too much of TNA if you think they can match WWE's production.

Well in the end, ratings exposure to the product, which equals merchandise buys as well as Pay Per View buys, which means money, which means survival. So ratings does indeed matter in any argument between one product and the other.

true, but you can't expect for people to be soleyl interested in appearances. At least not as much as when he was wrestling.

Of course not. But Hulk, wrestling or not. Should still be expected to draw better ratings all in all. He did after all have a huge fan following back in the WCW as well as his original run with WWF. I mean for the love of god Tenta he managed to turn face against The Rock at Wrestlemania, The Rock got booed compared to Hogan!

Except that worldwide marketing is something that's damn important. It pays to have a market in Europe, especially when the Euro goes for more than a Dollar. Again, the point is that there's more of an interest in TNA in Europe than the WWE, so how can you defeat that? You need to find a way to express how the WWE can reach out to global markets. Oh, by the way, something you said, the part I bolded, sounds a lot like something else I've heard at some point.

The Euro does indeed go for more than a dollar. But would that really change anything? I'll admit I'm not the greatest on the dollar vs Euro exchange and how much it matters of different with the money. Because in the end of the day, wouldn't it just mean that if Euros are exchanged to Dollars, you'd just have that more amount of dollars, but you wouldn't be able to purchase anything beyond what you'd be able to purchase for those Euros?

And yes the worldwide marketing problem is always gonna be there, because WWE, as well as TNA has still a need to expand. And it's just showing that WWE still has something to improve on. WWE still has ways to expand, and because they're the more known house-hold name. Why in the world wouldn't that give them the advantage in improving?

And the other thing you've heard before. Are you comparing me to Russo?

Other post reply will be up tomorrow most likely. So I'm not forgetting about it. But there's a lot to reply to.

 

[Tenta]

I took the liberty of cutting a bit out. Most noticeably the second paragraph in your first reply (Benoit where we agree to some extend)

Thank sweet buttery Jesus.

And how do you know exactly that all the Attitude Era guys are gone? That's right. You don't. The PG label are just fine to produce a proper product. KB has said it so many times "In what PG labeled movie do you find women in bikini's, people fighting and the use of weapons"? People are just ridiculous to scream up because there's no blood and the environment for wrestlers are much better.

Well, see, there’s a problem with that theory; Never before has the WWE ever been a publicly traded company. That is, until now. Believe me, this is going to be more of a permanent fixture, as Vince McMahon has people he now has to answer to, and can’t go about his business as a private one. As soon as he stood in the middle of Wall Street and rang on that fucking bell, he had to realize that WWE was going to have to answer to Stockholders and the like. So yeah, it’s still going to be a wrestling program, but there’s absolutely no way another Attitude Era is going to happen

Perhaps wrestling is on the way down in popularity in general. But how in the world do you expect TNA to be progressing then as well if wrestling is dying out? The demographic viewer wants to see edgy produced wrestling. Well how in the world is it that TNA is not pulling the ratings that supports these 18-49 year old viewers? I'm telling you Tenta, children is the future of wrestling. And WWE is slowly dragging them in this very moment. What is TNA doing? keeping them away from wrestling with the edgy and violent product. Sure wrestling is supposed to be violent, but it's obviously not working for TNA.

Because, Ferbian, when the WWE has outright catered to children, business has gone down the toilet. Do the years of 1994-1995 ring any bells to you? Cartoonish, childish gimmicks that almost put the WWE out of business. Hell, if WCW wasn’t pulling that same shit, one could argue WWE would be in even more trouble. The track record doesn’t lie, Ferbian; when the wrestling business is geared toward children, business goes down.

A deal WWE has also pulled in now. And the neither one of them should be doing that very thing. TNA is giving quality matches away on their web-cast system. WWE is just re-airing what has already been shown. TNA is showing stuff that could very well have done better on the actual show. How is that gonna be progressive? It sure as hell doesn't invite the people to start watching it on the television, the one place where the ratings are gonna come in. So unless you put ratings on the Internet streaming sides, it's not gonna work very well.

Because at this point, advertisers are just as willing to air their commercials on online television, and with advertisers doing this, online availability to shows is going to be even more important. Advertisers are starting to see a lucrative business towards internet television, and TNA already has a head up on WWE in this department.

There's no "Hogan's got an ego" argument here Tenta. I'm just saying that WCW got put out of business by the very guys that are in TNA right now. These very guys haven't done much to put over the actual guys that would make sense. I mean is Matt Morgan not in the dog house right now? He sure as hell screams the future to me. He should have been something in WWE even.

Every company has young, talented stars who wind in the “dog house”. MVP was for a good portion of time, one could argue he was the future. Kennedy was, to the point it got him fired, and he most definitely is part of the future. Every company has people they’re high on, and people they’re not so high on. He’s not young, but look at Chris Jericho. Hell, look at Jack Swagger, who the WWE was unhappy with his reign as champion. Jay Lethal is getting the rub, AJ is getting one, and he is both the present and future. Hernandez is getting one by being tied to Hogan, so are goes like the Pope. So don’t give me that the talent is getting the right push, because it isn’t true at all.

Yes Dixie Carter is surrounded by brains. Shame she's not using hers to do something proper with it all. ECW Tenta, E-C-Fucking-W.

Look, I’m the biggest Grinch as it pertains to the ECW angle. That said, people recognize the ECW name man. It’s only going to bring in viewers to TNA’s product, and will probably be done after the month, man

Sure it had other issues. But primarily it was due to our beloved Russo and the primary talent of NWO. They worked in the start (When Russo wasn't there). But in the end, it didn't work at all. And Russo is in TNA. I remember him in a shoot interview saying he was in WCW for 9 months, so he couldn't possibly have run them out of business in those 9 months. It's clear he's dazed by his own madness. How is that not gonna influence TNA eventually?

Look, any argument that comes down to Russo, I’m going to throw out. Simply enough, we agree, Russo is bad for TNA right now. I’m not going to bother to say anything either than I hope to God he’s fired soon. Otherwise, anything about Russo, to me, is really not telling me anything new. Russo is bad. The sky is blue. Wanna tell me where Grant’s buried, too?

Hogan was stale as shit during the months leading up to his heel turn. It wasn't hard to turn him when he was associated with what you even went as far as to call incredibly over heels. They were over as heels because the people thought they were still employed by WWF at that time. Not so hard to turn a stale babyface heel now is it? And the fact that WCW was touring and all that. How does that spell out for TNA then, WCW even managed to do it earlier than TNA has managed. That's real progressive right there Tenta, bravo.

That they had a billionaire overseeing them, how the fuck dense are you trying to portray yourself right now? WCW didn’t have to worry about money ever, they had fucking Ted Turner. Dixie and TNA doesn’t have nearly that much money, especially not as much as a fucking billionaire, man. This whole idea of comparing WCW to TNA is really illogical. WCW was backed by the Turner Broadcasting System, and TNA is backed by, what, Panda Energy? Sure, that’s a good bit of loot, but not nearly as much as fucking Ted Turner put up for his company, man.

I

've said it before Tenta, TNA have been having plenty of chances to go national. What is it that YOU are not getting? Of course I'm seeing the potential of moving out of the Impact Zone, but have TNA done it? No, because they're too damn stupid to realize the potential in it themselves. How in the hell do you expect them to realize it in the near future? I sure don't. They should have done it earlier, but they did not.

And how do you know they have the fiscal means to do such a thing? How are you not sure they’re still in a contract to perform at Universal Studios a select amount of dates? Remember, it’s still something at Universal that’s kind of an attraction. It would behoove them to keep it around, as it brings people into the park. Again, how have they had the chance to do so on a consistent basis? Where have you seen this be the case? Right, you’re talking out of your ass again, and can’t give me one.

Still interest in ECW? Are you out of your mind Tenta? Are you really? How much interest is there really left over for these people? It sure as hell haven't spiked the ratings, ECW remains to be an god awful product that while it revolutionized the business, has no purpose still existing. TNA trying to capitalize on something that shouldn't exist in the first place? Classy.

Right, you’re saying ECW had no business existing? Look, again, what you don’t seem to get is that ECW probably isn’t part of TNA’s long term plan. Again, this is a short term thing, and actually, they did so off a market focus group, which found out ECW was their favorite wrestling program.

The reason TNA is bringing in several former ECW stars is because the focus group that did research a few months back showed that many fans responded that ECW was their favorite period in wrestling when asked. The results from this focus group is what really started the idea of bringing in Paul Heyman to lead a group of former ECW stars.

So, yes, there does seem to be an interest in the ECW product, in spite of what you may believe. Nice try.

Sure, without the competition there's no need to further expand. Simply to thrive, WWE has thrived very well and always will be doing just that. And even if TNA was to grow into a competition for WWE. Where in the world does it state that WWE does not have the potential to rise above it with more growth and knock TNA right down the pit of failure it's slowly boiling in right now? It's improving I get that, but please god tell me you've paid attention to the people on this forum. Not just the WWE mark, but the actual TNA fans. The very people that hate half the product they're producing anyway. How in the WORLD is that positive?

Because, it doesn’t behoove the WWE to do so, it really doesn’t. If we’ve learned anything over the past few years, competition creates the best television. If the WWE wants even a lick of success like the Attitude Era, someone has to kick them in the ass, and get them to be competitive. See; WWE in 94-95, with shit programming, and no potential.

iMPACT has been around for almost 6 years Tenta.

And on one channel for less than three.

And the show is still pulling the same ratings as a show that has been around for less than a year, NXT. How is that anything even remotely positive to the product that TNA is putting forth, especially when there's a lot of hate for the current product NXT is putting forth with the awful challenges?

Are you really so blind? Look, we’ve covered ratings all over again, yet you seem to make them out to be a bigger deal than they really are. WWE programming began with about a 1.0 in 1993 when they debuted Raw. For a new show, and whether you admit it or not, TNA is a new brand, and a new show, the idea that a 1 is bad is pretty damn ludicrous.

The ratings between iMPACT and RAW was very different during the 95's and now. RAW was still pulling above a 2.0 rating, they were pulling more of a Smackdown rating averagely. TNA is still nowhere near Smackdown even. Perhaps if they wanna compete they should go compete with NXT, I just fear they'd loose even there.

No, it’s more comparable to 1995, because at that period of time, WWE was struggling in television, and was just starting to make the transition to Prime Time. It used to be that you’d have to pay just to watch one TNA show, man. You have to give this show time, and more than 3 years. Oh wait, right, it had three years on Fox Sports Net, too.

Markets: Something WWE could very well be doing as well. WWE is not aired in every damn country of the world, nor are they touring in every of those countries. Expansion is potent as ever.

No shit. Care to expand yourself? I mean, I gave you hard numbers about TNA is London, in other parts of the world, and you’re giving me “Markets; they’re important”. I cite you back to Grant’s Tomb, where you’ve still yet to tell me who’s buried there.

Product: They can develop their product like they want it to, WWE practically can as well. TNA just fails to make it a good product, WWE does make a good product.

Yes, because “Good” is a subjective form of an opinion

No it's not the best way to go. It's a potential way to go if WWE wants to do progress, I argued this with Slyfox yesterday, the potential is there, the right storyline however is needed. Just like with Hogan's heel turn. The potential was there, and the right storyline was given.

But you just admitted it isn’t the best way to go. Why would you offer a company to do something you knew wasn’t best for them? What intelligence level is it to say, “Hey, you know that guy that makes us millions of dollars off merchandise? We’re going to take him, and, uh, we’re going to make him less marketable”.

See what I mean?

Also there's 5-10 years to improve this very thing. There's no saying that WWE isn't gonna be debuting a guy in 1-2 years that will Stone Cold stunner the ratings through the roof. The potential is there Tenta, it's right under your nose.

Which I could argue is equal for TNA, too.

The ratings John are pulling are averagely 0.7-0.9 higher in point. How is that marginally better?

Actually, I got that Bret averaged to about 2.8, while Cena now averages about a 3. Again, marginal.

And even with the fact that The Nexus might be pulling the final 0.4 is still a good sign, because Wade Barrett is in there, Wade is the future. If Wade can draw, who's saying the potential for him to become the bigger heel of the company, or perhaps even a big draw for the company in the future? The chances are right under your nose as well.

Is it Wade drawing, or is it the angle? Come now, be serious. You and I both know the ratings are up because of an angle that, eventually, will die. Maybe not tomorrow, but the Nexus will eventually disband, and then we’re left with seven rookies who haven’t proven anything alone. No, not even Wade.

The biggest star perhaps. But how come he's not drawing ratings then? That would obviously scream "awful".

Again, smaller market, smaller channel, you’re looking foolish for trying to argue this point.

RVD was let go because he had to deal with a wife that was suffering from cancer, he practically retired.

And was a free agent, who said “Fuck WWE, I’m going over to this new product”. Sounds like a retired guy there

Kurt Angle couldn't get time off to heal injuries. It was a mistake yes, but TNA hasn't truly improved through Kurt Angle.

Good for you. Ratings were at about .6 before Kurt came in. They are what they are now. No, he hasn’t improved anything at all, beyond product, and match quality, which currently TNA kicks the WWE’s ass on three ways to Sunday.

Anderson I've always found overrated. Injury prone.

Preference, no use arguing that. However, has he injured anyone recently in TNA?

More talent might be moving to TNA, but they're not affecting the improvement of the product now are they?

Well, again, the only fair, quantifiable way to express that is match quality. Which, well, yes, they are.

But does that automatically mean that WWE can't create a star with time though? Something could go wrong with one of the currently active wrestlers. Or again we could utilize the fact that there's 5-10 years to make this change, and if WWE debuts Alberto Del Rio for example, realizes there's something wrong, and in 1-2 years he's the most over thing in WWE to date (Stretching it I know, but chances are there).

Very Much stretching things. Anyway, point taken, but the same can be said of TNA, just as easily.

Sure Vince is backing down and all that just a little bit, and he could very well be dead in 5-10 years (Chances aren't massive, considering he's only nearing 65). And who's to take over then? Triple H and Stephanie have been discussed, the chances are there. Triple H has a damn great mind for the business, who's to say he couldn't very well create the next big thing?

Yeah, I’m of the boat of people who vehemently disagree. All Triple H has proven in the business is that he’s a selfish brownoser, and Stephanie has proven she’s clueless about the business side of the business. Who has the business mentality of that couple? Who can handle the production staff, and the organizing of tour dates? Ya got someone for that, Ferbs? Because I assure you, it won’t be Stephanie, and it won’t be Trips. They just don’t have a business mind. Dixie, on the other hand, does, and is growing in experience on a wrestling mind.

Nothing compared to what he had in WWE Tenta. He wasn't really known to the public before he went to WWE. He wasn't really that over in ECW or in WCW.And sure the promo was decent and all. It showed potential and all that. But in the end it didn't bring him anywhere, he didn't accomplish anything in ECW now did he? In WCW he did, sure, but he still wasn't half the talent, or half as over as he was in WWE after his 3:16 promo.

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

The Hollywood Blondes were the most over tag team in WCW before being split up. People boo’ed the shit out of him in ECW, before he moved on to the WWE. This idea that Austin had “nothing” as you call it really kind of delusional. He was the 2nd Tier Champion, working fantastic matches with Steamboat, and had politics not cut him off at the legs, like what tends to happen to certain superstars in WWE, who knows what he could have become?

Yes they had the talent. But they became something thanks to Vince, The Rock for all I know could've been nothing without that heel turn. Austin could've been nothing without the gimmick change. And you know that.

Which, again, were really created by Rock and Austin. Vince wanted to make Rock a blue chipper. He was already set to be a heel, because people were chanting “Die Rocky Die” because of how much Vince fucked up. It wasn’t until Rock was allowed to be himself that he’d become a superstar.

The theory that Vince creates stars that revolutionizes the business, and he creates them within very little time.

I’m sorry, that was a sentence fragment. I believe how you meant to end that was, “with considerable help, and the talent’s input, otherwise Vince can lay an egg or five thousand”. Sounds more accurate to me.

Yeah by fucking up the Curtain Call. It could've very well have ment that Triple H was the future of the business, and Austin wasn't gonna be the future, because he probably wouldn't have had the chance to cut the promo that made him what he became. Triple H could've very well have accomplished things that would've helped the business during his time with D-Generation X, he did after all help Shawn into building what became the Attitude Era, don't deny it Tenta. Shawn and Triple H slowly build towards it.

Did they, or was Triple H still the quiet, steady guy on promos, and was Shawn the star power?

That's what I said, Bryan Danielson got over as one of the few people that got over through ROH before he arrived. WWE doesn't solely get talent over, but they sure as hell are a large factor in it.

Perhaps, but Bryan was well over before he came to the WWE.

Yes sure. But wouldn't that mean that Vince then knows how it functions to create stars? Or are you gonna completely overlook the fact that you just said it yourself?

No, Vince has an eye for talent, but I’m not so certain about those when Vince does eventually leave, which may be sooner than later.

He's not incredibly awful there. He does have some potential, at least he's not Morrison. But yes the politics was awful. But Ziggler was still left to swim the big shark filled sea by himself because of it.

Wasn’t Morrison supposed to be a new star, too? How’s that panning out there?

RUSSO!!!! Simple. WWE did indeed have some awful things, but just like I've always said about the TNA and WWE Comparison right now. Some slightly awful things in WWE overshadowed by some great things will automatically leave WWE thought highly of. A lot of shit in TNA overshadowing the great stuff TNA produces = TNA gets the shit bucket.

Russo argument. You know what happens to these babies. Look, we agree that Russo is horrible, and shouldn’t be a head writer. So let’s just get those out of the way.

[YOUTUBE]CLqnqaLoZjY[/YOUTUBE]

Good enough for you?

Partially, but I’d like to know the event, and whether Orton was a pronounced babyface, as he is now.

Edit: It was Summerslam, which happened in LA. I’ll accept it, but that was everyone wanted Orton as a face.

For now it might, but what in 5-10 years if WWE has another money cow to draw the merchandises on, and the ratings drawing from a Cena heel turn? Again, I don't like it. But it's a shot worth taking if it means better ratings.

I’d wait until they have that cash cow. Which they don’t.

Not sure whether it was during the draft. Still a low rating nonetheless.

It was. Everyone was expecting a poor number, so it wasn’t shocking.

The Spike vs USA Network is one thing I can't truly argue on Tenta, you know I'm not American. But the fact that WWE barely has done any improvement in the ratings when they did in fact move. As well as the fact that TNA is STILL drawing 1/3rd of the WWE ratings, or lower, on an average basic. That's still nothing that spells "woop-ti-do go us!"

I’d equate that with a lack of the same faces that used to be on USA, plus a lack of advetising for quite some time about the move. Plus, TNN used to be the Tennessee Network, or some shit like that, and extremely localized. Hell, it was considered a success if ECW got a 1.3, and they usually got the best ratings on the channel.

Well in the end, ratings exposure to the product, which equals merchandise buys as well as Pay Per View buys, which means money, which means survival. So ratings does indeed matter in any argument between one product and the other.

I get the importance of ratings, but what you don’t seem to get is that are different sets of standards, really.

Of course not. But Hulk, wrestling or not. Should still be expected to draw better ratings all in all. He did after all have a huge fan following back in the WCW as well as his original run with WWF. I mean for the love of god Tenta he managed to turn face against The Rock at Wrestlemania, The Rock got booed compared to Hogan!

Because people hadn’t seen Hogan in a WWE ring in eight years. It was purely a nostalgia thing, that and the belief that The Rock “sold out”

The Euro does indeed go for more than a dollar. But would that really change anything? I'll admit I'm not the greatest on the dollar vs Euro exchange and how much it matters of different with the money. Because in the end of the day, wouldn't it just mean that if Euros are exchanged to Dollars, you'd just have that more amount of dollars, but you wouldn't be able to purchase anything beyond what you'd be able to purchase for those Euros?

Not really. Translated, it would just mean more dollars.

And yes the worldwide marketing problem is always gonna be there, because WWE, as well as TNA has still a need to expand. And it's just showing that WWE still has something to improve on. WWE still has ways to expand, and because they're the more known house-hold name. Why in the world wouldn't that give them the advantage in improving?

Because people can’t get it for free, and if you can get an alternate for free, people are going to take the free alternate

And the other thing you've heard before. Are you comparing me to Russo?

Man… I feel really bad now

ther post reply will be up tomorrow most likely. So I'm not forgetting about it. But there's a lot to reply to.

Trust me, I’m well aware.

 

[Ferbian]

This is my final reply, after agreement from Tenta to leave out the other post. This will allow both Tenta and I to have a break before the actual Debater's League, as well as to give the judges some time to judge.

Well, see, there’s a problem with that theory; Never before has the WWE ever been a publicly traded company. That is, until now. Believe me, this is going to be more of a permanent fixture, as Vince McMahon has people he now has to answer to, and can’t go about his business as a private one. As soon as he stood in the middle of Wall Street and rang on that fucking bell, he had to realize that WWE was going to have to answer to Stockholders and the like. So yeah, it’s still going to be a wrestling program, but there’s absolutely no way another Attitude Era is going to happen

Yes but the problem with that is Tenta. You talk about stockholders and all that. But if Vince can convince, as well as show the obvious part for the stockholders to realize that if Vince does something, it could prove good for business. So while there might be some cases they would protest, in the manner of what Vince feels would make big money, the stockholders will oblige.

Because, Ferbian, when the WWE has outright catered to children, business has gone down the toilet. Do the years of 1994-1995 ring any bells to you? Cartoonish, childish gimmicks that almost put the WWE out of business. Hell, if WCW wasn’t pulling that same shit, one could argue WWE would be in even more trouble. The track record doesn’t lie, Ferbian; when the wrestling business is geared toward children, business goes down.

That might very well be true. But how do you not know that, seeing as we have 5-10 years, in time, Vince will change the product just a little bit to cater to the now children, future teenagers. Then we'll be catering to the 18-49 group again, and WWE could very well be progressing again.

And even with that, the WWE still manages to pull in a fine share of adults to watch their current product. While catering to the children. How is that not gonna work out for them in the long run?

Because at this point, advertisers are just as willing to air their commercials on online television, and with advertisers doing this, online availability to shows is going to be even more important. Advertisers are starting to see a lucrative business towards internet television, and TNA already has a head up on WWE in this department.

But even with that. It still does not mean improving business, sure there's more fans viewing it. But tell me Tenta, where are the money flowing in?

That's right, they're NOT flowing in, because the Internet is free. We've already addressed this, money equals success. Sure they might eventually grow in a few more fans here and there, but why for the love of god would it be enough to change anything? Especially when WWE is doing the same damn thing?

Every company has young, talented stars who wind in the “dog house”. MVP was for a good portion of time, one could argue he was the future. Kennedy was, to the point it got him fired, and he most definitely is part of the future. Every company has people they’re high on, and people they’re not so high on. He’s not young, but look at Chris Jericho. Hell, look at Jack Swagger, who the WWE was unhappy with his reign as champion. Jay Lethal is getting the rub, AJ is getting one, and he is both the present and future. Hernandez is getting one by being tied to Hogan, so are goes like the Pope. So don’t give me that the talent is getting the right push, because it isn’t true at all.

Sure there's a future in A.J Styles, but he has already been at the top. He's already been where his future is destined to be. If he plans on becoming more of the future, he's not gonna be in TNA, because he's done it all there already. And he's still not able to improve anything for TNA, he never has, never will.

WWE sure has some they're not that high on, that's right. But they're high on some that have already proved they can be the future of the company. Sheamus is very well the future, he's over, and he's a good heel. The Nexus are getting a firm stand in the company, especially Wade - The future. The Miz is getting rewarded, and is most definitely the future.

Look, I’m the biggest Grinch as it pertains to the ECW angle. That said, people recognize the ECW name man. It’s only going to bring in viewers to TNA’s product, and will probably be done after the month, man

The ECW name is recognized yes. And it will bring in some viewers, but how are you sure there won't be some viewers that just aren't happy with it? How are you gonna be sure those ECW hardcore fans aren't gonna be down right pissed?

The ECW product is old. It's outdated, and if Dixie sees a one night improvement because the fans expect highly of it. And there's no delivering, and Dixie thinks "It did well the first night, let's do it again". Won't that mean she's slowly pulling it down in the shithole anyway? More than ECW would be doing by themselves because the viewers most likely won't stick around after ECW is gone.

That they had a billionaire overseeing them, how the fuck dense are you trying to portray yourself right now? WCW didn’t have to worry about money ever, they had fucking Ted Turner. Dixie and TNA doesn’t have nearly that much money, especially not as much as a fucking billionaire, man. This whole idea of comparing WCW to TNA is really illogical. WCW was backed by the Turner Broadcasting System, and TNA is backed by, what, Panda Energy? Sure, that’s a good bit of loot, but not nearly as much as fucking Ted Turner put up for his company, man.

So you're saying that it requires billions of dollars to move out of a small building and actually improve in some manner or another for it to actually work? They need billions of dollars? That's just ridiculous, TNA should be just fine on moving around and all that on the millions of dollars Panda Energy provides. I mean for the love of god man they're hiring talent left and right for those millions of dollars. They are matter of a fact slowly becoming the new WCW, but not in the positive way. They're filling up the roster with talent that shouldn't even be there!

And how do you know they have the fiscal means to do such a thing? How are you not sure they’re still in a contract to perform at Universal Studios a select amount of dates? Remember, it’s still something at Universal that’s kind of an attraction. It would behoove them to keep it around, as it brings people into the park. Again, how have they had the chance to do so on a consistent basis? Where have you seen this be the case? Right, you’re talking out of your ass again, and can’t give me one.

Contracts can be canceled in some manner. It might cost a bit here and there, but TNA sure as hell have more than enough of the resources to get their ass out of the Impact Zone. But have they? No.

They've had the chances each and every damn week Tenta, they have the money, they've done house-shows. How the hell is it not possible for them to do it on a consistent basis? Are you telling me they haven't had the chance? Pfft, give me a break dude.

Right, you’re saying ECW had no business existing? Look, again, what you don’t seem to get is that ECW probably isn’t part of TNA’s long term plan. Again, this is a short term thing, and actually, they did so off a market focus group, which found out ECW was their favorite wrestling program.

I never said that. I said it has no business still existing dude. Read my arguments before you comment.

There might be a decent request for the product of ECW. But they're nowhere near the point where they can still perform like back then. You know very well what toll the wrestling business takes on ones body, are you gonna tell me Foley are gonna be able to go through another hardcore match and still look fine?

Okay bad example, Foley is a crazy fucker. He could fall off a building and be alright. Hell he did just that. How about Sandman then? Sabu? Any of the other hardcore legends that have been doing something in one way or another in the period between One Night Stand and now. Sabu is still a botching maniac after all. Are you gonna trust the product on him?

Because, it doesn’t behoove the WWE to do so, it really doesn’t. If we’ve learned anything over the past few years, competition creates the best television. If the WWE wants even a lick of success like the Attitude Era, someone has to kick them in the ass, and get them to be competitive. See; WWE in 94-95, with shit programming, and no potential.

Again you're not reading what I said. I'm saying that if TNA rises up to the competition, who's to say WWE does not have the potential to rise above that, and kick TNA's ass with a bigger growth in talent and marketing etc?

Are you really so blind? Look, we’ve covered ratings all over again, yet you seem to make them out to be a bigger deal than they really are. WWE programming began with about a 1.0 in 1993 when they debuted Raw. For a new show, and whether you admit it or not, TNA is a new brand, and a new show, the idea that a 1 is bad is pretty damn ludicrous.

But even before RAW debuted, Saturday Night Main Event was still around and pulling huge ratings. Sure it wasn't around as often, but it still managed to pull the crowds and therefore WWE was just fine. This is TNA's only damn show, and it took TNA 8 years to reach the ratings WWE was having in their first year of debuting a new show.

No, it’s more comparable to 1995, because at that period of time, WWE was struggling in television, and was just starting to make the transition to Prime Time. It used to be that you’d have to pay just to watch one TNA show, man. You have to give this show time, and more than 3 years. Oh wait, right, it had three years on Fox Sports Net, too.

Yet even if WWE programming was struggling, then they're still doing better in the ratings than TNA. How does that spell out for TNA? Would that mean that they're in shit to their neck then?

No shit. Care to expand yourself? I mean, I gave you hard numbers about TNA is London, in other parts of the world, and you’re giving me “Markets; they’re important”. I cite you back to Grant’s Tomb, where you’ve still yet to tell me who’s buried there.

London is one place, in one country. How many countries are there in the world Tenta? And how many have WWE, or TNA for that sake, expanded themselves to? Potential growth is there for both of them. WWE just have the house-hold name to expand themselves with more ease.

Yes, because “Good” is a subjective form of an opinion

But does that change the fact that a lot of people, who even watch TNA are thinking it's an awful programming? Who's saying they won't eventually get tired of it, and simply switch off, or more importantly, WWE.

But you just admitted it isn’t the best way to go. Why would you offer a company to do something you knew wasn’t best for them? What intelligence level is it to say, “Hey, you know that guy that makes us millions of dollars off merchandise? We’re going to take him, and, uh, we’re going to make him less marketable”.

See what I mean?

Because it's simply a potential way to go Tenta. What part of that don't you get? Sure WWE does not have the same money cow to replace Cena right now, but where is this unwritten rule that there simply cannot come another talent along to take the place of Cena in, the 5 - 10 years timespan we have.

Is it Wade drawing, or is it the angle? Come now, be serious. You and I both know the ratings are up because of an angle that, eventually, will die. Maybe not tomorrow, but the Nexus will eventually disband, and then we’re left with seven rookies who haven’t proven anything alone. No, not even Wade.

The ratings might very well have gone up because of the angle, but a storyline does not carry itself, the talent is essential as ever in a storyline for it to work. We've had this situation of argument before Tenta, I damn well started a thread on whether the Hulk Hogan moniker could've been used by someone else, or whether WWE could've been big without Terry Bollea.

Again, smaller market, smaller channel, you’re looking foolish for trying to argue this point.

It might be a smaller channel and smaller marked. But wouldn't you expect if he was truly a big draw that the fans would've followed him?

And was a free agent, who said “Fuck WWE, I’m going over to this new product”. Sounds like a retired guy there

The guy is fucked up in his head Tenta, you know that. Could be that he simply chose depending on where his friends where? God if I know why he went there.

Good for you. Ratings were at about .6 before Kurt came in. They are what they are now. No, he hasn’t improved anything at all, beyond product, and match quality, which currently TNA kicks the WWE’s ass on three ways to Sunday.

Sure Kurt might have improved the ratings just a little bit. But he's ultimately nowhere near the draw that makes a difference. And that's funny considering he was supposedly the top dog on the paycheck in WWE.

Preference, no use arguing that. However, has he injured anyone recently in TNA?

I'm not saying he's injury prone in causing injuries. But the fact that he spend the majority of his final years with WWE on the sideline is not spelling greatness for him. Therefore he's injury prone. But oh well, I guess injury prone people can become a success as well, I mean look at Edge

Well, again, the only fair, quantifiable way to express that is match quality. Which, well, yes, they are.

Sure better matches perhaps, but that's not all the product is about. And even with better matches, there's still a lot of awful shit in TNA covering it up. TNA has a lot of things that needs to be fixed to function properly.

Yeah, I’m of the boat of people who vehemently disagree. All Triple H has proven in the business is that he’s a selfish brownoser, and Stephanie has proven she’s clueless about the business side of the business. Who has the business mentality of that couple? Who can handle the production staff, and the organizing of tour dates? Ya got someone for that, Ferbs? Because I assure you, it won’t be Stephanie, and it won’t be Trips. They just don’t have a business mind. Dixie, on the other hand, does, and is growing in experience on a wrestling mind.

How sure are you that WWE does not have someone in the company that can take care of that side? Who's saying Shane McMahon is gonna stay away forever? Who's saying Vince is even retiring in the coming 5-10 years. So on that aspect we wouldn't even have to worry about it.

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

The Hollywood Blondes were the most over tag team in WCW before being split up. People boo’ed the shit out of him in ECW, before he moved on to the WWE. This idea that Austin had “nothing” as you call it really kind of delusional. He was the 2nd Tier Champion, working fantastic matches with Steamboat, and had politics not cut him off at the legs, like what tends to happen to certain superstars in WWE, who knows what he could have become?

That might very well be true. But who's to say WCW or ECW would've been able to use him properly? That he would've not gotten lost in the shuffle due to Hogan or something, or if the fans had not taken him in at the top of the company as a main event player (In case he ever would've gotten there, I mean he would've needed to sacrifice his body because it's obvious the fans wanted blood and violence there).

Which, again, were really created by Rock and Austin. Vince wanted to make Rock a blue chipper. He was already set to be a heel, because people were chanting “Die Rocky Die” because of how much Vince fucked up. It wasn’t until Rock was allowed to be himself that he’d become a superstar.

But even with that Vince still created the platform for them to make it work on. He did after all turn them into what they were, the gimmick change was put in action like it or not Tenta.

I’m sorry, that was a sentence fragment. I believe how you meant to end that was, “with considerable help, and the talent’s input, otherwise Vince can lay an egg or five thousand”. Sounds more accurate to me.

I won't discredit that the talent is needed to create the bigger storyline etc. But in the end of the day, Vince had just as much an input as ever.

Did they, or was Triple H still the quiet, steady guy on promos, and was Shawn the star power?

Triple H was just as big a commodity to D-Generation X as Shawn, Shawn was merely the champion, but DX most likely wouldn't have worked in the same manner without Triple H.

Perhaps, but Bryan was well over before he came to the WWE.

Which is exactly what I've already said.

No, Vince has an eye for talent, but I’m not so certain about those when Vince does eventually leave, which may be sooner than later.

There's still talent searchers within the WWE. I mean we still have Jim Ross as a backstage talent scout, he spotted John Cena. So the eye for talent within the company would remain just fine. Even if Vince was to leave soon, which I'm still in doubt about until I see it.

Wasn’t Morrison supposed to be a new star, too? How’s that panning out there?

Morrison doesn't have anywhere near the charisma to be a worthy main event player. He's not gonna be put in a position to carry the company. Also because of the fact that John is nowhere near as over as some of the other talent that could very well be a much better choice for the main event than John himself.

Spoiler

Of course John in theory could become WWE champion. Everybody has the potential to in theory become WWE champion. It doesn't mean they will. And John Morrison falls into this category as well. He's over. At least a bit. But he's boring. He's inconsistent in the ring as well as on the microphone.

He's not the type of guy I could see WWE resting the top belt on. Sure if he starts Mizzing his way to the top by public appearances etc. then it can always happen. But right now? Not a chance.

John Morrison isn't even credible enough to be world champion. And don't start "Neither was Sheamus, neither was Jack Swagger". Because they could be made credible. John is a smaller guy. He's around a main event card where there's a lot of big guys. Especially the champion, Sheamus. Who won't be going down to John Morrison of all people. A current mid-carder.

So yes he could become champion. But he won't.

This is what I had to say about a thread where someone questioned whether John could become world champion.

Partially, but I’d like to know the event, and whether Orton was a pronounced babyface, as he is now.

Edit: It was Summerslam, which happened in LA. I’ll accept it, but that was everyone wanted Orton as a face.

They might have wanted him to be a face, but it still screams somewhat of a hatred towards John Cena.

[YOUTUBE]X-CAitmY_DQ[/YOUTUBE]

Couldn't help it.

I’d wait until they have that cash cow. Which they don’t.

Which could come along in less than 5-10 years.

It was. Everyone was expecting a poor number, so it wasn’t shocking.

Perhaps not, but everyone was expecting a low number when WWE went head to head with Monday Night Football, but they still pulled 3 (or above, I can't remember exactly)

I’d equate that with a lack of the same faces that used to be on USA, plus a lack of advetising for quite some time about the move. Plus, TNN used to be the Tennessee Network, or some shit like that, and extremely localized. Hell, it was considered a success if ECW got a 1.3, and they usually got the best ratings on the channel.

Advertisement that caused WWE to be taken off the air audio wise.

And ECW is something that could be rather acceptable to draw such low ratings compared to the fact that there was still the 2 biggest companies people could watch, ECW was the 3rd company, the least popular of the 3.

I get the importance of ratings, but what you don’t seem to get is that are different sets of standards, really.

I get that just fine. Sure TNA is on a lower platform and all that yada yada. But TNA has just as well the same resources to make it as WWE, but they're not.

Because people hadn’t seen Hogan in a WWE ring in eight years. It was purely a nostalgia thing, that and the belief that The Rock “sold out”

It helps on the fact that it turned Hogan and all that sure, but it doesn't change the fact that in the end of the day, Hogan was over enough to pull a heel turn on The Rock.

Also, people had not seen Hogan in a mainstream wrestling ring for about 3½ year between his Summerslam appearance and his appearance in TNA. Not as big a time, but should still be able to pull just a little bit bigger of a hype than he has been getting.

Because people can’t get it for free, and if you can get an alternate for free, people are going to take the free alternate

Who is really saying TNA is gonna be offering free television all around the world? And who's saying WWE is not gonna be offering free television around the world? Either way giving something away free to a large percentage of what will become the marked of either promotions, will be absolutely ludicrous

 

[Tenta]

Do you guys still want us to judge this? I read it and you guys did a hell of a job and both made very valid points. It will by be easy to judge it at all.

Only if you feel up to it, Crock. Personally, I feel as though we've done our job. The point of this, I hope everyone realizes, was how difficult and time consuming this may be. This will not be, repeat, will not be for the weak at heart. Ferbs pushed me to every bit of my existence, and this may have been my most difficult debate on these forums, ever.

That said, Crock... I gotta know...

 

[Ferbian]

I agree with Tenta. It is only if the judges wants to judge our performance in this thread. It's after all merely a preseason thing, and just for the sake of Tenta wanting to get ahead, and me wanting to see what it was all about.

This has been perhaps my favorite non-spam thread to date on this forum. Great topic by Dave, as well as the fact that I couldn't have asked for a better opponent.

 

[The Crock]

You both get a score out of 5. I liked both arguments but I had to judge it a little differently... One of you got 5/5 and the other got 4.5/5... It was that close. Don't hate me for this, but I give Tenta the win. He just had a few extra facts in there, not as much "fluff"... Although you didn't have much either Ferbs. It was a slim margin of victory and my hat's off to both of you gentleman.

 

[SpoodBeest]

Wow for a "demo" of what the Debater's League is going with hold you guys both really did go all out in this thing. I think it worked in setting a intimidation factor for all of your future opponents. Anyway let's get straight to business.

Clarity: You were both very clear in all of your rebuttals and open debates you put forth to one and other. They were very well written and i had no issues with either on of your posting abilities. The thing that also makes your clarity that much more fantastic is that their was a whole lot to read from the both of you but never once did it feel cluttered due to the amount of writing, it was all clean and organized and really just flowed well in each of the sections you put forth.

Point: Tie

Punctuality: Again much like the clarity, you both did a great job with punctuation. I had no issues at all with this from either one of you. This really shows that you two are high class posters on here and will both be forces to be reckoned with come the Debater's League. Great work from the both of you yet again.

Point: Tie

Informative: Now as great as I thought Ferbian did, I believe Tenta had his number here. Tenta knows his stuff and he can really back up a cause with a vast amount of information if needs be and he showed us all this with his debates he set forth this past week. Especially when it came to talking about the post Steroid Scandal and WWF's Dark Ages.

Point: Tenta

Emotionality: There was no as passion to their cause as Ferbian was. He was set to point out all of WWE's future potential and researched as great as he could about how they could succeed in the future. His passion for the WWE just really showed during this debate and his posts reflected that. I did not get this same vibe with Tenta and TNA

Point: Ferbian

And now it is time for Good Ol' SB to give out his final point of the evening...

Persuasion: Now I am a little bit biased with WWE and TNA. I like WWE and can't say the same for TNA so I was pro WWE through this entire debate and mainly would have chose Ferbian's side if I were in his shoes. But that doesn't stop the fact that Tenta persuaded me to believe that maybe once they decide to expand past Florida TNA could become something much greater and since they haven't yet we won't find out but when they do... That was his main point and I have to admit it turned this judge's head.

Point: Tenta

So the judging is complete and therefore my total scores for each competitor is:

Tenta 2, Ferbian 1, with two ties in there as well. Good luck to you both I'm sure you will be favorites going into the Debater's League.

 

[Dave]

Punctuality: Again much like the clarity, you both did a great job with punctuation. I had no issues at all with this from either one of you. This really shows that you two are high class posters on here and will both be forces to be reckoned with come the Debater's League. Great work from the both of you yet again.

Point: Tie

That's not what punctuality means, SB. Punctuality means being fast to reply. Punctuation is what you were thinking of and that generally comes under clarity.

So, I finally got through this massive bitch of a debate and I want to congratulations to both of you guys. You were just slugging away for a week and if it is any sign of how the actual debate league is going to go, then the judges are going to hate it. Anyway, here is my scoring.

Clarity: I am going to call this as a tie. As the other judges have said, both were really well written and no one really made any huge spelling mistakes or Freudian slips that would have been telling. Either way, you both put down some great markers here. The one thing I would say is that you should BOTH try and reduce what you are saying in future debates. It was very easy for me to lose myself in a wall of text and the overall point of the text was lost.

Point: Tie.

Informative: I have to give this point to Tenta. Ferbian, I noticed a number of things that you said that Tenta immediately pulled you up on. You made a few mistakes on things that were key to your success and Tenta countered them brilliantly. Things like, it only took Hogan a month to get over. Tenta could smell blood in the water and basically schooled you. For me, his knowledge of old school wrestling really won the day here. However, you have only been watching wrestling for a few years and I would urge you to steer clear of things like this in your actual debates if you don't know what you are talking about.

Point: Tenta.

Emotionality: I hate this criteria because it is very hard to win an emotionality point in written text. Unless you are both getting pretty angry, then there is never going to be emotion in the posts. Either way, I am calling this one a tie because of that reason.

Point: Tie.

Persuasion: Before I came into the debate to read what you had said, I had the idea of who I thought had the better chance of being more developed in 5-10 years and that was TNA. Now, the way I marked this was by asking myself if I still felt that way and unfortunately for Ferbian, I do. You guys had some great points and it was difficult but at the end of the day, that is the most telling figure of all. Personally, a lot of these arguments had nothing to do with development and a lot of text could have been cut out. However, as I read through it, Ferbian never showed me enough to sway my belief. As a huge WWE mark, I would have loved him to but Tenta gave me enough information to secure this point.

Point: Tenta.

So, I have marked this debate 3-1 in favour of Tenta.

Good job guys.