Vince Russo Dragging TNA Down?

[wildcard22583]

Russo hasnt dragged down TNA....management has done that if anything. I am a firm follower of the company, but I must say that the past few weeks...outside of an occasional LAX match, and Petey becoming Steiner.... have been pretty damn boring. Russo is a guy that has actually stated at times that he wishes he could do some things different than what you see on TV, but Dutch Mantell, Jarrett, and a few others wont allow it to happen. I think somewhere it stated that he just tends to go with the flow now because its a losing battle. So I have to say that when people bash the guy...they should really try to figure out the source first. He gets the ideas from them then has to work with it....that would be, in all actuality, a really crappy job. I give him kudos for trying what he has done and for still having ideas to contribute to the table...I mean come on, he pulled alot out for WWE and WCW, I'm surprised the guy isnt fried. Lastly, I feel that if BOTH TNA and WWE started to listen to the fans alot more and what they want as a majority, they would all do better. They dont though, and we all stick around waiting to see if they will smarten up. There should be a damn petition to get everyone a say in what they want to see. Wishing thinking huh?

 

[misskim]

All I can say is this.

I thought TNA last year during August-november something was HORRIBLE, but by God they have built character, they have somewhat good storylines now that aren't totally ******ed, and I actually relaized that for the first time since the year 2000 I actually CAN'T WAIT for the next show. I can't WAIT for the next episode of iMPACT to come, the show actually makes me wanting for more, if that ain't saying something about Russo I don't know what does.

iMPACT imo is by far the best wrestling show today and if that's thanks to Russo.. then thank you Mr Russo. I seriously love it right now, I think putting Steiner in the main event picture was really awesome, the main event feud now is GREAT as opposed to the royal cluster**** earlier.

The thing that keeps iMPACT down now is that people don't know it exists, because as a wrestling show it's really really good

 

[Audioslave]

Audioslave:
I don't find WWE to be the Worst Wrestling Ever. There are parts that I like about WWE wrestling. I just think TNA has the better roster and have better matches that sometimes are only hurt by booking. WWE in no means have bad wrestling, I definitely just prefer and think TNA has the best wrestling in the US.

I guess we can concede that the particular point is basically a matter of preference, then. I just think that some people tend to underrate the quality of WWE matches based on them being in the position of the big bad sports entertainment boogieman, so to speak, and I guess I felt that's what you were aiming at. But apparently not, so s'all cool.

 

[Kfabe]

As far as I'm concerned, we should all give Russo a bit more respect than what he gets. I think a lot of people are still hurt and pissed off that WCW disappeared, and the wrestling world is now a worse place for it. The same people who were WWF marks and were cheering for WCW's demise, are now realising it's screwed up the industry by them not being here. I think these people use Russo as a focal point to channel their disappointment about WCW.

People forget what Russo has actually done for the wrestling industry.

Fact; when Russo arrived at WWF, the ratings were at 1.8-2.0's. Russo took over and more than doubled them.
Fact; when Russo arrived at WCW, he took ratings from a 2.9 and brought them up to a 3.5.
Fact; when Russo left the ratings again fell to 2.4's.
Fact; during Russo's time at TNA, ratings have risen and the company is now setting new attendance records on a monthly basis.

Facts CANNOT be disputed. That being said, it is clear to anybody with a bit of intelligence that Russo is NOT dragging TNA down.
I think lately, TNA is doing better weekly shows than WWE, the difference being the way WWE polishes the product on screen. I guarantee that if TNA were using WWE's set, arena's and equipment, they would be hailed as the best by everyone. Its clear to me that some people are just too fickle and easily swayed by the look of the product. An example being fans who think Cena is better than Brian Kendrick (who has more ability in his left bollock than John Cena).

 

[Audioslave]

Fact; when Russo arrived at WCW, he took ratings from a 2.9 and brought them up to a 3.5.

I already dispelled this bullshit myth in the thread in the old exclusives section. The average rating of his first 14 week term was lower than the average of those weeks that preceded his arrival. He did NOTHING for ratings. Hell, the seven weeks before he took over booking did better ratings than he averaged in his whole tenure there.

Fact; when Russo left the ratings again fell to 2.4's.

During the time when he came back for his second term and when that term ended went from 3.0 to mid 2's and then there was no saving that company creatively. Very few people wanted to watch the product after the last year or so of garbage that went on.

Facts CANNOT be disputed.

Sure they can. Especially when those two statements of yours are anything but.

 

[Kfabe]

I already dispelled this bullshit myth in the thread in the old exclusives section.

It's bullshit just because you say so? What are you, an ex WCW employee who knows the ins and outs of the business? I doubt it. All you have is access to the same information we ALL have, so please explain how what I have said is bullshit.

The average rating of his first 14 week term was lower than the average of those weeks that preceded his arrival.

I'm not desputing that, however that doesn't mean what I said is false. Your taking a small part of his time there to use to your benefit. If you look at the entire picture, I think you will see that he improved ratings.

Sure they can. Especially when those two statements of yours are anything but.

Like I said, just because you said so?
By all means, if you have access to something that I have never read that proves otherwise then share it. I will happily admit to being naive. However, until you put something on here that proves what you say, I will stick by what I have read.
If you can't back up what your saying, then there's no point in you even sticking your nose in is there...

 

[Audioslave]

Your taking a small part of his time there to use to your benefit.

That's exactly what you're doing and you're lambasting me for actually finding the ratings and doing the math to show that he didn't do shit for ratings?

If you look at the entire picture, I think you will see that he improved ratings.

I did exactly that when I averaged the ratings for the time period before and after he arrived. Overall, on average the ratings got.. LOWER.

Like I said, just because you said so?

Because I did the fucking math.

If you can't back up what your saying, then there's no point in you even sticking your nose in is there...

Speak for yourself. You take the first week he arrived and the last week he was there and are all "LOL HE RAISED RATINGS". When, if you want to make an accurate assessment of what he actually did you need to average out his entire tenure there. Which, again, is lower on average than the 14 weeks prior to his arrival. He did NOTHING for the ratings.

 

[BradXXX]

That's exactly what you're doing and you're lambasting me for actually finding the ratings and doing the math to show that he didn't do shit for ratings?


I did exactly that when I averaged the ratings for the time period before and after he arrived. Overall, on average the ratings got.. LOWER.


Because I did the fucking math.


Speak for yourself. You take the first week he arrived and the last week he was there and are all "LOL HE RAISED RATINGS". When, if you want to make an accurate assessment of what he actually did you need to average out his entire tenure there. Which, again, is lower on average than the 14 weeks prior to his arrival. He did NOTHING for the ratings.

Did you even watch the company during that time period? After they removed Russo from booking the first time, there was a long period after that where the shows were so fucking boring and awful, that all the progress he had made, was gone. By the time he got his second run, everything was in the toilet worse than it was before (not his fault), and he had to try to bring the company back up to where he had it the first time.

All I know is, for everyone that hates Russo, do you remember those months after they removed him the first time? THOSE WERE THE WORST FUCKING SHOWS I've ever seen in my life.

 

[gg inferno]

Did you even watch the company during that time period? After they removed Russo from booking the first time, there was a long period after that where the shows were so fucking boring and awful, that all the progress he had made, was gone. By the time he got his second run, everything was in the toilet worse than it was before (not his fault), and he had to try to bring the company back up to where he had it the first time.

All I know is, for everyone that hates Russo, do you remember those months after they removed him the first time? THOSE WERE THE WORST FUCKING SHOWS I've ever seen in my life.

that is true, and that's why they brought him back.

 

[gg inferno]

I already dispelled this bullshit myth in the thread in the old exclusives section. The average rating of his first 14 week term was lower than the average of those weeks that preceded his arrival. He did NOTHING for ratings. Hell, the seven weeks before he took over booking did better ratings than he averaged in his whole tenure there.

During the time when he came back for his second term and when that term ended went from 3.0 to mid 2's and then there was no saving that company creatively. Very few people wanted to watch the product after the last year or so of garbage that went on.


Sure they can. Especially when those two statements of yours are anything but.

how can drawing a 3.5, your highest rated show, and then be removed be considered a myth?? i'd love to take this argument to a jury. what you need to look at is february to the time russo came in. look at that decline and do the math, because that's the sole reason he was brought in to begin with, to try to right a sinknig ship. mind you, before he came to wcw he was writing the show that was kicking our ass.

 

[Marty2Hotty]

I was banned by Y2Jake for spamming (meaning putting the TNA rating on the TNA section and then saying that TNA needs to use their talent better in order to grow a new fanbase) for 7 days. I'm back now.. and will try even more to put more BS in my paragraphs so it doesn't come across as spamming.

I can't believe we're talking about "Vince Russo killing WCW" still. He wrote the shows for 1.5 years. Then with Ed for another year. The ratings almost quadrupled for the WWE. He came into WCW and made the shows light years more exciting. WWE was the "talk of the town" at that point and it would have probably taken a few years straight of great programming in order for a "significant change" to be seen. He was taken off after three months. Came back after things were back to squareone, wrote for 6 months and was injured. The ratings from the time he wrote the second time were pretty much the same throughout. WWF was still the talk of the town until after a year, people started to realize how boring their show was and as each year passed, the ratings dropped.

Russo writes compelling, exciting television and understands how to build characters, push the envelope, get people talking, and grow the fanbase.

TNA did a decent show this week with some good segments.. but IMO, there was nothing "cross the line" about it (whatever that means). The show was still "we are wrestling". I hate that BG/Kip are just jobbers.. Kurt Angle isn't doing anything and he's just the 'serious guy'.. alhtough he confronted AJ. AJ said some pretty funny stuff. There isn't enough comedy. Shark Boy jobbed.. STILL got a great pop after being off television for three long weeks, didn't get on the mic.

Super Eric coming out was okay. I didn't think there was enough character development, but the Velvet/Angelina stuff was great... There was too much wrestling for the sake of it.. and people change the channel because it's the same shit.

If Vince Russo wrote the shows for TNA alone for one solid year, and Jeff Jarrett (being the "Vince McMahon" of TNA) approved everything he did much like Mcmahon did back in the day, TNA would be doing 1.6s by the end of the year and even more the next.

Wikipedia.org (I dont know where they got ther information) in January said TNA producers credited the upsurge of ratings to Vince Russos (no citation found)... but at the time, TNA was entertaining and was on the verge of growing.

With Sting, Steiner, Nash, Dudleys, Christian, Rhino, New Age Outlaws, Booker T, Kurt Angle, they can't even pass 1.0 - and they have been at 1.0 or about the same for 2 years.. what's up with that

TNA needs a huge angle.. and they need to consistently do shit for 2 hours straight that will hold the attention of a casual viewer. If this means shortening the length of wrestling matches SIGNIFICANTLY, they will HAVE TO DO IT.

If TNA does do that and they get to 3.0 in a few years, every revenue stream will increase. TNA just has to stop paying fuckin attention to the bullshit critics that say the same shit about what 'wrestling needs'.. They are helping TNA struggle and maintain for 1.0 for years.

 

[Audioslave]

how can drawing a 3.5, your highest rated show, and then be removed be considered a myth?? i'd love to take this argument to a jury. what you need to look at is february to the time russo came in. look at that decline and do the math, because that's the sole reason he was brought in to begin with, to try to right a sinknig ship. mind you, before he came to wcw he was writing the show that was kicking our ass.

OH WOW, he drew a 3.5 one week. Lets completely disregard that the average for his entire first run was lower than the preceding 14 weeks. Lets also ignore the fact that his second run was an unmitigated disaster! Oh, lets forget that a few weeks before Russo came in, they did not only one, but two 4.0's. Yeah lets ignore all those facts, so that we can bathe in a Russo-made cumbath. Y'all are ridiculous.

OH HEY LOOK, without Russo, they had a 3.6 rating in February! Kevin Sullivan must've been doing a fantastic job! Showing the rating of ONE FUCKING WEEK when 3.5's weren't a consistent number for his tenure is bullshit.

Also, if I were to show the ratings of the months before and the ratings of Russo's tenure and show how they're still consistently declining (like I have in the past) and I said "Hey, I got a few of my own ideas. Give me (so and so) to help out and three months and I bet I could do a better job.", chances are that at that point, with the ratings as shit as they were, they probably would. And they did. Russo wasn't working, so they had Sullivan. He wasn't working, so they said "Well, Russo did work with Vince McMahon to turn that company around.. so lets bring back Bischoff to help turn this shit around." And know what? It didn't. So they went with whoever they did the following months. Bischoff was supposedly burnt out and no one else had any fucking vision, especially Russo. You wouldn't need a multi-million super dollar billions of bajillions of a budget to compete with WWE. All you need is a group of stars you want to elevate that are fresh, young and hungry (Benoit, Guerrero, Douglas, Mysterio, Booker, Regal, etc) alongside a bunch of useful veterans that would hopefully be easy to work with so long as they're featured players (ala Bret, Ric, Sting and Steiner).. Then you know what you do? Compliment all of those talents with good writing, consistent storytelling with compelling twists and turns. Not The Fat Chick Thriller 70's Guy or MIA or turning Booker T into GI Bro. That shit is not going to compete with the edgy, compelling and at times pretty humorous onslaught of drama with the Angle/Triple H stuff, Rocky in general, etc.

The reason the business and wrestling television is in the sad state it is, is because of people like you who are hanging onto a guy (or a type of television [see: Crash TV]) whose usefulness became outdated the second he came to WCW and did that ******ed "Powers That Be" bullshit.

 

[gg inferno]

here's a great hypothetical. Let's say, for example, that paul heyman became the lead writer for raw tomorrow. let's say for the first three months they did 3.2' and 3.1's. Then the week he pops the rating to a 4.5 he gets fired. i would love to see what your typical internet fan would have to say about that.

 

[Audioslave]

here's a great hypothetical. Let's say, for example, that paul heyman became the lead writer for raw tomorrow. let's say for the first three months they did 3.2' and 3.1's. Then the week he pops the rating to a 4.5 he gets fired. i would love to see what your typical internet fan would have to say about that.

That's the thing. The hypothetical would never work and it would never happen. Vince McMahon has the end say and Heyman would likely not flourish under those limitations. Heyman works much, much better creatively when he's the lone ranger or the lead guy with others contributing. Russo, however, is a guy that would flourish in WWE's writing style.

And the hypothetical is stupid, because you're making stupid assertions based on your idiotic generalizations of the Internet Wrestling Fan. Hell, fuck the internet wrestling fan. You have absolutely zero idea what appeals to casual wrestling fans. You see Russo write something stupid and think "Yep, that's what the casuals would want, because it's Vince Russo's booking and that sure worked about 10 years ago." When most of the stuff he puts on is stupid, childish, lame and/or convoluted bullshit that would have any casual viewer shaking their heads in shame and ripping the people they know that actually have watched this shit regularly. And then turning on Earl, The Office, CSI, Lost or something like that.

The fact of the matter is that people have changed significantly in the past 10 years and their tastes are much different. The tastes of the people nowadays dictates more reality-based storytelling from their programs. And TNA provides NONE of that.

Jay Lethal and Sharkboy, doing their Savage and Austin impersonations, are much like that guy from back in the mid 90's that kept fucking doing Ace Ventura impressions every goddamn day and would quote the movie ad nauseam. Those things are cute once in a while, but when you have that type of schmuck doing that.. then yeah, it gets old. And Lethal's been doing that schtick for a year and Sharkboy's been doing it for a few months. Know what? It's old. And now Super Eric joining in on it? Fucking God damn.

None of that is hip. None of that is edgy. None of that is compelling. None of that would fall under "reality-based storytelling".

It's cheap, lazy writing.

 

[Marty2Hotty]

audioslave.. you say the "previous 14 weeks" of WCW were higher (barely). Please show the ratings week after week. Conclusion: the ratings were DROPPING.

Quite frankly, I don't even care about the ratings too much. Vince Russo writes the best damn shows ever! In the WWF, the shows were adult oriented and much more exciting. In WCW, when he wrote, the shows were pretty damn entertaining, exciting, had me marking out every single damn week, while the WWF were doing the same bullshit that bored the living crap out of me.

WWF 2000-2008: WWF is still doing 3.4s. Their shows are decent enough to maintain that fanbase. But When Russo was writing, they did double that rating WITH competition. This is with Vince McMahon being his boss and taking care of him. Russo had nobody to look after him when he went to WCW. That is why it was decided to take him out after 3 months, when the ratings were actually getting progressively better, whereas if you look at the previous 14 weeks (as you like to say), the ratings were going DOWN, which is why bischoff was kicked out and WCW seeked the WWF head writers Vince Russo and Ed Ferrara to write.

It's a shame that Russo is not getting his full vision in TNA right now, because if he was, TNA would be doing 2.0s very soon rather than staying at 1.0 for the next year or two. TNA did get to 1.22 earlier this year but as soon as it got boring, you're not going to grow your audience.

I hate it when TNA puts long wrestling matches, does boring wrestling angles. I want to see something different, that I haven't seen before. I want to be entertained like I haven't been entertained before. The more you do shit that we have seen in the past, the more you're not going to grow your audience and that's the bottom line.

Glenn, go to management and speak up.

 

[gg inferno]

That's the thing. The hypothetical would never work and it would never happen. Vince McMahon has the end say and Heyman would likely not flourish under those limitations. Heyman works much, much better creatively when he's the lone ranger or the lead guy with others contributing. Russo, however, is a guy that would flourish in WWE's writing style.

And the hypothetical is stupid, because you're making stupid assertions based on your idiotic generalizations of the Internet Wrestling Fan. Hell, fuck the internet wrestling fan. You have absolutely zero idea what appeals to casual wrestling fans. You see Russo write something stupid and think "Yep, that's what the casuals would want, because it's Vince Russo's booking and that sure worked about 10 years ago." When most of the stuff he puts on is stupid, childish, lame and/or convoluted bullshit that would have any casual viewer shaking their heads in shame and ripping the people they know that actually have watched this shit regularly. And then turning on Earl, The Office, CSI, Lost or something like that.

The fact of the matter is that people have changed significantly in the past 10 years and their tastes are much different. The tastes of the people nowadays dictates more reality-based storytelling from their programs. And TNA provides NONE of that.

Jay Lethal and Sharkboy, doing their Savage and Austin impersonations, are much like that guy from back in the mid 90's that kept fucking doing Ace Ventura impressions every goddamn day and would quote the movie ad nauseam. Those things are cute once in a while, but when you have that type of schmuck doing that.. then yeah, it gets old. And Lethal's been doing that schtick for a year and Sharkboy's been doing it for a few months. Know what? It's old. And now Super Eric joining in on it? Fucking God damn.

None of that is hip. None of that is edgy. None of that is compelling. None of that would fall under "reality-based storytelling".

It's cheap, lazy writing.

if it's so old, why do they still get a pop? YOU, let me repeat that, YOU have your own personal preference of what YOU like. Unfortunately, YOU don't speak for a whole hell of alot of fans. All three of those guys still get a good reaction. Do YOU have anything else to support your claim that they're getting old? Why are you even still posting? YOU must know that slyfox is going to eventually read this and rip you to shreads. Are YOU a masochist?

and let me get this right. are you claiming to be a casual wrestling fan? Or do you think you know more about casual wrestling fans than i do? or are you trying to pretend again that you know more about this business than i do? because i certainly don't think you represent casual wrestling fans, because casual wrestling fans aren't throwing out f-bombs on internet wrestling message boards. i would contest that you represent that absolute stereotype of the typical internet wrestling mark, and you provide most of the evidence for that.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I've had enough. Sharkboy is not an impression, it is a parody. If that was Russo's idea, he is making a statement that it is the writers, not the wrestlers, who make the show. That idea is ludicrous. Lethal and Sharkboy do dead-on impressions, according to most of the IWC (I think Lethal sucks at both wrestling and acting, and also living.) Re-using those gimmicks (to extreme measures) is a clear shot at every internet fan. You were a fan of Macho, you were a fan of Austin, well, we the writers, created those guys, and you will watch whatever bullshit we come up with.

Seriously though, Russo is goven too much credit for WWE's comeback, and WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much blame for WCW's demise. First, Wcw's demise. The nWo gimmick was almost inescapable. It wasn't like the Horsemen (or DX, Evolution, Ministry) because it grew from a stable to a rebel guerilla group. Too many people were involved. Much of their ratings success was due to people tuning in to see who would be joining or turning on Hogan tonight. It was a group that had 35 leaders, and even took time out of its busy schedule to have yet another massive turn on Sting. I swear to you, if there was ever a bad idea in WCW, it was letting nWo get too big. It was the reason people tuned in, but it was inevitable that it was going to get stale. The only problem was, it would take 25 hours of TV to unravel everyone who was involved and get them into regular programs. The entire roster were heels. Russo couldn't fix that. He recognized the proble, and tried to turn the crowd against someone else, the Powers. He cannabalized himself to the crowd to be merely a distraction. He told the wrestling audience to hate him while he transtioned to wrestling from a convoluted, poorly acted version of West Side Story.

On the other hand, in WWE, Russo is given too much credit. WWE has always used a big writing staff. The staff kept Russo from having a good idea and over-producing it. It was also helpful that he didn't have to write everything. Stone Cold, Rock, HHH, Taker, HBK, Edge, even D-Lo and Godfather and the Outlaws, and Foley, etc. that the WWE had at the time were capable of doing their own segments and adjusting on the fly to crowd response. All Russo had to come up with were ideas, whereas in TNA now he has to come up with the words, as only four or five guys are capable of speaking on their own.


Plus, how can he be dragging down the show when ratings are up? This is one premise in which there has been no logical response. I'm sorry, smarks, that TNA recognized that more people were watching their show, and decided to go for mass appeal, which means gimmick matches and love stories, over 30 minute matches with two guys competing to see how many flying tiger space drops they could hit in a three minute span while two cruiserweights hurricanranna the entire crowd.

Remember, they can lose 3,000 smarks if they gain 10,000 curious "normal" fans.

I thoroughly enjoy the show and you can find why I think it superior to WWE elsewhere in this section. I think that segments slow well, and the comedy is funny, and the intensity is intense. And Tomko isn't singing to AJ, which is good. AJ singing to Tomko would be great though. Someone call Russo......

 

[gg inferno]

I've had enough. Sharkboy is not an impression, it is a parody. If that was Russo's idea, he is making a statement that it is the writers, not the wrestlers, who make the show. That idea is ludicrous. Lethal and Sharkboy do dead-on impressions, according to most of the IWC (I think Lethal sucks at both wrestling and acting, and also living.) Re-using those gimmicks (to extreme measures) is a clear shot at every internet fan. You were a fan of Macho, you were a fan of Austin, well, we the writers, created those guys, and you will watch whatever bullshit we come up with.

Seriously though, Russo is goven too much credit for WWE's comeback, and WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much blame for WCW's demise. First, Wcw's demise. The nWo gimmick was almost inescapable. It wasn't like the Horsemen (or DX, Evolution, Ministry) because it grew from a stable to a rebel guerilla group. Too many people were involved. Much of their ratings success was due to people tuning in to see who would be joining or turning on Hogan tonight. It was a group that had 35 leaders, and even took time out of its busy schedule to have yet another massive turn on Sting. I swear to you, if there was ever a bad idea in WCW, it was letting nWo get too big. It was the reason people tuned in, but it was inevitable that it was going to get stale. The only problem was, it would take 25 hours of TV to unravel everyone who was involved and get them into regular programs. The entire roster were heels. Russo couldn't fix that. He recognized the proble, and tried to turn the crowd against someone else, the Powers. He cannabalized himself to the crowd to be merely a distraction. He told the wrestling audience to hate him while he transtioned to wrestling from a convoluted, poorly acted version of West Side Story.

On the other hand, in WWE, Russo is given too much credit. WWE has always used a big writing staff. The staff kept Russo from having a good idea and over-producing it. It was also helpful that he didn't have to write everything. Stone Cold, Rock, HHH, Taker, HBK, Edge, even D-Lo and Godfather and the Outlaws, and Foley, etc. that the WWE had at the time were capable of doing their own segments and adjusting on the fly to crowd response. All Russo had to come up with were ideas, whereas in TNA now he has to come up with the words, as only four or five guys are capable of speaking on their own.


Plus, how can he be dragging down the show when ratings are up? This is one premise in which there has been no logical response. I'm sorry, smarks, that TNA recognized that more people were watching their show, and decided to go for mass appeal, which means gimmick matches and love stories, over 30 minute matches with two guys competing to see how many flying tiger space drops they could hit in a three minute span while two cruiserweights hurricanranna the entire crowd.

Remember, they can lose 3,000 smarks if they gain 10,000 curious "normal" fans.

I thoroughly enjoy the show and you can find why I think it superior to WWE elsewhere in this section. I think that segments slow well, and the comedy is funny, and the intensity is intense. And Tomko isn't singing to AJ, which is good. AJ singing to Tomko would be great though. Someone call Russo......

you have inaccurate facts. wwe has a huge writing staff TODAY. back then it was just russo and ferrara, and terry taylor would sit in on the meetings. shark boys t-shirt is the highest seller, and the stone cold shark boy wasn't russo's idea, it was shark boy's. so maybe shark boy is taking shots at internet fans.

you're right about the 3,000 into 10,000 though.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Ok. Russo is still given too much credit for WWE's comeback because it is that stars who made that. WCW's top guys promoed on live TV, but the WWE's guys wrestled. The Stone Colds and Rocks made the comeback, not Russo. If any Vince can be credited, it's McMahon because his feud with Stone Cold was epic.

Off topic, but I always marked out for Terry Taylor as a kid.

I don't know what Sharkboy's t-shirt revenue has to do with anything, but I like Cena's Nintendo shirt. Your move Disco, your move.

Sharkboy's gimmick however does matter. No matter who's idea it is, it is still a parody, not an impression. Lethal was the same thing. Calling Val Liz all the time made him seem like a mental patient. Now he seems like a doofus for not kicking Dutt's ass, but I digress. In any event, they just seem like in-ring versions of Nacho, Huckster, and Gillberg. When I saw those skits, it was the same to me. I never like Hogan, but when I was like 9 or 10 I was thinking the WWF (at the time) was telling fans that they may be leaving, but the business made them, they didn't make the business. In nine year old logic, I would tell myself, they can go wherever, but the WWF is here to stay.

 

[Audioslave]

if it's so old, why do they still get a pop? YOU, let me repeat that, YOU have your own personal preference of what YOU like. Unfortunately, YOU don't speak for a whole hell of alot of fans. All three of those guys still get a good reaction. Do YOU have anything else to support your claim that they're getting old? Why are you even still posting? YOU must know that slyfox is going to eventually read this and rip you to shreads. Are YOU a masochist?

and let me get this right. are you claiming to be a casual wrestling fan? Or do you think you know more about casual wrestling fans than i do? or are you trying to pretend again that you know more about this business than i do? because i certainly don't think you represent casual wrestling fans, because casual wrestling fans aren't throwing out f-bombs on internet wrestling message boards. i would contest that you represent that absolute stereotype of the typical internet wrestling mark, and you provide most of the evidence for that.

I'm not quite in the hardcore group and I'm not quite in the casual group, but I have a pretty fucking good idea of what people want to see as far as what kind of content is on their television. Specifically, in this case, wrestling. No one wants to sit around and get berated for watching something that's as fucking corny and lame as what TNA puts on their television. Back before I knew what an internet wrestling fan was, I felt this way too. I had watched WWE during it's lowest of lows and NO ONE would fess up to being a wrestling fan up until the nWo arrived, or when ECW started getting hot, or Stone Cold Steve Austin specifically.

For some reason you seem very apt to disregarding every single person's opinion that happens to be negative about TNA and you marginalize them by stating they're typical internet fans, just so you can somehow justify not taking any criticism and going "Hey, maybe they're right."

I know plenty of people that are more casual than I and not one of them would watch TNA, because of the exact same reason why people wouldn't watch WCW and WWF in the mid 90's - because on the whole it's corny garbage.

1995: "Wrestling was only good when Hogan, Savage and such were tearing shit up in WWF. Now wrestling's garbage. It's not what it used to be.
96 - 99: "DID YOU SEE RAW/NITRO LAST MONDAY? Oh, and that shit that went down in ECW was tight!"
Now: "Man, why do you still watch that wrestling shit? It was only good when the NWO and Austin were around.. and ECW sucks nowadays too."

TNA isn't going to become anywhere near as big as WWE, because they're not offering anything new, edgy or compelling that we haven't seen before. "Oh, but we have feast or fired! And the six sided ring! And the ambiguous "X" Division!".. no one cares. And WWE, they're kinda in a rut themselves, but at least you generally get some solid, if unspectacular, programming every week. Although last Raw was pretty awesome.

I figure this segment of the discussion is basically a stalemate, I'll move on to something else. I wanted to gauge your thoughts and ask you: What did you think of Heyman's column at the Sun? Linked below.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/wrestling/heyman/article1105741.ece

 

[Marty2Hotty]

Yeah, FYI, The Shark Boy T-Shirt is on the top 10 sellers list even at ShopTNA.com. Not sure if that means a lot even though the site has a lot of merchandise. Maybe TNA needs to actually start using the guy.

Shark Boy alone will not draw the ratings for TNA, although I do believe hot segments every week will keep the masses interested. You need to make sure that all the stories and characters on the show are interesting to the 18-34 demographic that you're trying to reach.

TNA is kind of too tame/juvenile right now for the most part. I dont watch WWE but I assume this is the same for them. Russo needs to write the shows to make it more compelling, and TNA needs that "hot" angle. They sure as hell have the talent (super star names and young guys) to do one

 

[Kfabe]

Seriously though, Russo is goven too much credit for WWE's comeback...

...On the other hand, in WWE, Russo is given too much credit. WWE has always used a big writing staff. The staff kept Russo from having a good idea and over-producing it. It was also helpful that he didn't have to write everything...

...All Russo had to come up with were ideas...

I don't get this?
I was under the impression that Russo WAS infact writing everything...?
How can Russo not be credited for WWE's success? If it was only Russo alongside 2 other guys who were responsible for the whole show?

I'll put it like this; What your saying is exactly like having a book become a best seller and be credited numerous awards, then us all turn round and say it was nothing to do with the writer...?!?

Ok. Russo is still given too much credit for WWE's comeback because it is that stars who made that.

Yes the wrestlers were an integral part of WWE's success, however, who gave them the storylines to work? Who gave them their matches? Their feuds? Who wrote their great skits and segments? Who decided whether they were faces or heels? Who gave them their characters? Who refined already good characters into great characters?

If a football team wins the Superbowl, yes the players are responsible for that success, however do we not also recognise the coach for his selection and tactics? Of course we do!
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

Look at TNA right now... All I know is prior to Russo, TNA had the great wrestling yes, but they had absolutely no depth with their wrestlers.
Now, EVERY SINGLE wrestler (apart from Elix Skipper lol) has a character and has been given a push at some point. EVERYBODY...
How many guys in WWE are in limbo at the moment?

Not only is Russo doing a good job, he is also protecting wrestlers careers too!
I'm sure if you asked, at least 60% of WWE's wrestlers would LOVE to work under Russo...

 

[gg inferno]

I'm not quite in the hardcore group and I'm not quite in the casual group, but I have a pretty fucking good idea of what people want to see as far as what kind of content is on their television. Specifically, in this case, wrestling. No one wants to sit around and get berated for watching something that's as fucking corny and lame as what TNA puts on their television. Back before I knew what an internet wrestling fan was, I felt this way too. I had watched WWE during it's lowest of lows and NO ONE would fess up to being a wrestling fan up until the nWo arrived, or when ECW started getting hot, or Stone Cold Steve Austin specifically.

For some reason you seem very apt to disregarding every single person's opinion that happens to be negative about TNA and you marginalize them by stating they're typical internet fans, just so you can somehow justify not taking any criticism and going "Hey, maybe they're right."

I know plenty of people that are more casual than I and not one of them would watch TNA, because of the exact same reason why people wouldn't watch WCW and WWF in the mid 90's - because on the whole it's corny garbage.

1995: "Wrestling was only good when Hogan, Savage and such were tearing shit up in WWF. Now wrestling's garbage. It's not what it used to be.
96 - 99: "DID YOU SEE RAW/NITRO LAST MONDAY? Oh, and that shit that went down in ECW was tight!"
Now: "Man, why do you still watch that wrestling shit? It was only good when the NWO and Austin were around.. and ECW sucks nowadays too."

TNA isn't going to become anywhere near as big as WWE, because they're not offering anything new, edgy or compelling that we haven't seen before. "Oh, but we have feast or fired! And the six sided ring! And the ambiguous "X" Division!".. no one cares. And WWE, they're kinda in a rut themselves, but at least you generally get some solid, if unspectacular, programming every week. Although last Raw was pretty awesome.

I figure this segment of the discussion is basically a stalemate, I'll move on to something else. I wanted to gauge your thoughts and ask you: What did you think of Heyman's column at the Sun? Linked below.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/wrestling/heyman/article1105741.ece

first of all, i don't disregard everyone's negative opinions about tna. i just take issue when those with negative opinions treat their opinions as facts and claim to speak for more people than they actually do. for the record, i personally don't like everything on the show, and i'll address some of those specifically in part 2 of my current article.

i agree with heyman's article, but you have to understand that tna operates within a budget right now. as the company grows, the marketing of the product will increase. it doesn't happen overnight. as it stands right now, we're drawing a 1.0-1.1 on a weekly basis on spike tv, which the network is pleased with. wwe is practically a monopoly in the wrestling business, and their owner is a billionaire. they can afford to do the things they do, like pay mayweather millions, whereas tna can't right now. tna is what it is. a growing wrestling organization with some great young talent that's trying to get a piece of the wrestling pie, at a time when the pie isn't as big as it used to be.

 

[Shub]

Glenn, are there any wrestlers in the TNA locker room who think that Russo is "bringing them down"? I've heard that some of the wrestlers in TNA are bigger marks than the ppl who post here. What is their take on this situation?

 

[Audioslave]

i agree with heyman's article, but you have to understand that tna operates within a budget right now. as the company grows, the marketing of the product will increase. it doesn't happen overnight. as it stands right now, we're drawing a 1.0-1.1 on a weekly basis on spike tv, which the network is pleased with. wwe is practically a monopoly in the wrestling business, and their owner is a billionaire. they can afford to do the things they do, like pay mayweather millions, whereas tna can't right now. tna is what it is. a growing wrestling organization with some great young talent that's trying to get a piece of the wrestling pie, at a time when the pie isn't as big as it used to be.

I think his point is that, as far as getting the word out, you guys don't really do much other than Bubba the Love Sponge and some other lesser knowns. He was probably trying to emphasize that y'all don't do enough to get someone like Joe, Angle, or Christian Cage on the late nite shows people watch.

And I know I'm mostly negative on TNA, but that's moreso because I believe wholeheartedly that you guys could be doing much more cohesive and compelling storylines that don't turn off a would-be casual wrestling viewer. I know people like that and I get a general idea of who they are. TNA's viewers seem to be routine 1.0's and there hasn't been that significant differential since y'all arrived on Spike. Well, at least onto prime time.

Maybe I can explain it a bit better and without the vitriol. This is about appealing to a wider audience, right? And what was one of the biggest reasons for the success back in the mid-late 90's for wrestling? People talked about it. Everywhere. Go to school on Tuesday, and you have a group of friends there talking about what they saw on Raw/Nitro. Austin, Rock and DX were the main people they talked about for WWE. Hogan, Outsiders, nWo Sting, DDP and the Horseman (from memory, there were probably more cause WCW was LOADED) were talked about. Something like Sharkboy's cute in a way that The Godfather is. Nice side attraction, not gonna draw a dime in ratings or attendance. But y'all are overexposing that and it gets dumber and dumber the more it does. Curry Man to Prince AJ to Super Eric, and Lethal really needs to evolve past the Macho Man thing. It's been a year and it's run it's course. That's not the stuff that's going to get people talking about it at school the next day or at the water cooler or whatever. Why? It's embarrassing to watch and admit to watching. The stuff that could, potentially, do that are Angle, Morgan, Joe, Cage, Sting and maybe, if marketed and presented as good as the cruisers were in WCW, the X-Division.

And here's a constructive suggestion: Before one of the next PPVs, why don't you pitch that Dixie go and talk to one of the Spike TV guys and see if they can get Christian Cage booked on Craig Ferguson? Or hell.. try and get him booked on Conan. Conan does a really good job with wrestlers. It'd work too, since Cage is currently a babyface, he's charismatic as hell and from what I can tell he's got a good sense of humor. He'd be a perfect fit to go on one of those shows and promote TNA to a widespread different audience. That's what I never got. Why hasn't TNA tried getting them on some late night talk shows?