Rating for TNA Impact Special was a

[PureHatred]

And honestly, if people weren't so intimidated by the fact that you carry yourself like you're the Wizard of Oz, more people would point out that that point of view is a quitter's or "loser's" point of view.

I've spent my entire life being told at every level of athletics I've been associated with, through every facet of life, throughout my military career, and into the business world, that you don't just throw in the towel because "winning" is a longshot.

And I don't know anyone who who accepts a poor effort just because things look bad.

I'm going to bet that tickets to the LWPD Motivational Speaking Tour are still available.

[Vidtek]

swarm said:

So when TNA blatantly craps the bed not a single TNA mark on these boards enters into the discussion?

you're all there to freak out when I claim they suck...

but when they prove me right...you're nowhere to be heard from.

so for future references, if you can't be a fan of your fed when their down, then I don't see the point of jumping all over people who think the show sucks.

I just wanted to point that out.

edit: ok I take that back. Cakejedi has a great post. sorry buddy. but where are the usual suspects?

Sorry, Swarm. Was busy. I haven't even watched the show yet, although it's on my DVR and I will tomorrow. I didn't feel that chiming in on the rating for a show I haven't yet seen is a rather pointless endeavor. That why I'm usually a day or so behind on the WWE discussions. So I'll watch it then get back to you.
Who knows, maybe I'll think it sucks too. You never know.

And just for comparison for someone who doesn't know how all these rating numbers work...what was the show scoring before? What do other shows on basic cable score during that time slot (not going to include broadcast stations because I know more people can see them)? And why is a 1.0 so bad anyway? Just wondering. I never try to hype TNA on rating because I don't know the answers to those questions. Answer that, let me watch the show and then I'll get back to you.

Usual suspect out.
Big Time

[Vidtek]

swarm said:

I'm just saying the ratings prove WWE rules, and TNA sucks. And now that I've be proved right, it's a ghost town...

Great debaters can debate both sides...I claim DX sucks balls too, but no one cares about me saying that...of course not, it's WWE.

I just find it ironic.

OK, I'm going to try and refute this without the facts I asked for earlier because that way when I'm totally wrong I can refute myself later as better informed.
I don't think that just because one show has higher ratings than another should be an indication that it sucks. After all Raw has been on TV longer than any other show in TV history. I would think by now it has a pretty established fan base (and that gets a "duh" from everyone here). TNA has been on TV a lot less. They are still finding their audience. WCW wasn't ruling the airwaves right off the bat. I wouldn't think TNA would be scoring big ratings wise (however one does that). But that's just me. Like I said, a little more info and I might be able to argue this stronger...
Oh and we don't argue over the fact that DX sucks becasue...well I don't know why that is. I know we disagree on most everything but I don't know why we don't discuss this more often because I don't think they suck at all. But that's the WWE boards and this is TNA...the new face of professional wrestling...(sorry, it seemed right to use their tag line there.)
Big Time

[PureHatred]

adamsmasher said:

And just for comparison for someone who doesn't know how all these rating numbers work...what was the show scoring before? What do other shows on basic cable score during that time slot (not going to include broadcast stations because I know more people can see them)? And why is a 1.0 so bad anyway?

All really good questions.

--The show was scoring on average a 0.7. It had dipped as low as 0.6 and even had been as high as 1.1 or 1.2 but had pretty much settled at 0.7

--Other shows vary wildly. CSI, which was the lead in this week and will aparently be the regular lead in usually gets a rating in the high 2's or 3.

To be totally fair though, any show on basic cable scoring a 1.0 or above is conisdered "a hit."

SpikeTV's weekly average is about a 1.1

--A 1.0 would be considered a bad rating because the WWE is TNA's main competition ( Raw is scoring neary 4 and its in a down period) and because the amount of effort put into advertising the show. You also have to take into account that while wrestling is traditionally a strong ratings getter, it doesn't attract very many sponsors.

So wrestling programs have to have almost doubel the ratings, comparitively speaking, to attract any kind of decent ad revenue.

[LWPD]

Wow...Little Javier greets me with some good morning sunshine. Lets see what we've got.

LWPD you are under the mistaken impression that anybody who disagrees with you is somehow not "as smart" as you or "just doesn't get it."

That's just not true. There are a great many posters who I've agreed to disagree with over the years who have readily shown an adult level intelligence and with whom I share a mutual respect. You're just not among that group.

To be crystal clear on my alluded to impression: Little Javier Zuniga aka Purehatred, displays borderline GED level thinking, reading and writing skills...and is a low level Internet troll who offers me no value other than unintentional comedy. Note that isn't a personal attack...just an honest exhibition of one of my alluded to 'interpretations'.

This is exaclty what you did during the Eirc Bischoff discussion as well.

'Exaclty'? Eirc Bischoff? It's hard to read your drivel and type without laughing. There really wasn't much of a 'debate'. Due to the impression listed above you're not someone I consider worth engaging in a discussion. Your posts are at a very low level and this thread will probably be the last time I acknowledge you. Note it has always been you who seeks out my discourse...not the other way around. Interacting with you brings me nothing of value because you're worthless to me. That's the straight truth. That said:

Eric Bischoff Thread

Now during the cited 'Eirc' Bischoff discussion you for some reason chose to tell me I was 'wrong' about something which you were later shown to have a very superficial knowledge of. I fail to see how the quality of your posts in that thread can be judged as coming off as 'smart' or as someone who 'gets it'...your posts had the same peanut gallery quality insight I'd expect from a 13 year old Internet smart mark. I see future reading, context dropping, poor reading comprehension and obfuscation. It's utter drek. Anyone else here is free to view Little Javier's performance in that dialogue...the thread is an otherwise great read with strong analysis by OTHER POSTERS and video/audio links to the germane topic.

Because that's the only thing you're preaching: TNA fans should accept a bad product because TNA will never really achieve any real measure of success. So stop complaining.

While I'm flattered you've taken the time to 'think' you know my 'pitch'....once again your comprehension level is lacking. Had you respectfully asked me to expand on my thinking instead of trolling and behaving like a petulant child I would have been happy to do so. Instead you chose this route and wound up exposing yourself in the process.

I have never had a problem with people critiquing TNA for any reason whatsoever. I've done so myself a great many times. That said I have always found it moronic when people critique aspects of ANYTHING that they have no first hand connection or experience with while AT THE SAME TIME elevating their third hand information formed 'abstractions' and 'preferences' to a superior footing with those actually engaging said subject on an intrinsic 'first hand experience' level. It's the act of someone deluding themselves into thinking 'they know' the very complexities of a situation which they are divorced from better than those who are connected to it.

Rest easy Little Javier...I don't expect someone like you to be able to grasp anything I just said.

To be clear telling people to accept a 'bad product' has never been a part of the above equation....nor does acting in the name of 'refusing to accept' a bad product excuse those who engage in the type of comedic exercise named above.

And honestly, if people weren't so intimidated by the fact that you carry yourself like you're the Wizard of Oz, more people would point out that that point of view is a quitter's or "loser's" point of view.

I've spent my entire life being told...blah...blah...blah

Snip the Wizard of Oz and Little Javier's After-School Special...although I've heard it's a lot better than that Earth First COTG Bootleg Wrestlecrap you've put out. Now THAT'S truly the product of a loser mentality.

My advice is to re-read the above and if you are capable 'try' to realize that all along you were arguing ghost points that were never in contention before you even began your little troll.

LWPD (who in the real world has done a few Corporate seminars over the years...but only as a speech writer...and could usually correctly 'spell the words' of the speeches I wrote...a few sometimes got by)

[dukedave]

LWPD and PH, Can't we all just get along. Just look how Swarm and CPB put aside their differences and are the best of friends now. Oops, bad example.

[swarm]

hahaha

[Splattercat]

Usual Suspect incoming...

I'm avoiding this discussion because of an agreement I have with...Actually, with a whole bunch of people come to think of it...LWPD and PH are having a discussion that I REALLY shouldn't comment on, and Swarm is wondering where I am (as a usual suspect)...

To Quote Galvatron from 'Return of Optimus Prime: Part 1' (Transformers season 3 episode 29)

"They've all gone mad. This is no place for me!!"

[Knapik]

You totally just quoted Transformers, 'Cat

[swarm]

splattercat didn't you say about a week ago you don't/can't watch TNA cause of a new work schedule or something?

[Splattercat]

swarm said:

splattercat didn't you say about a week ago you don't/can't watch TNA cause of a new work schedule or something?

That too...I can't actually watch any wrestling right now (not even PPVs)...I'm a horrible fan...

[swarm]

you goota get Tivo bro. do they have Tivo in Canada? I would imagine they do.

[Splattercat]

I'm pretty sure we have it ( I REALLY don't want to say we don't )...however, I don't watch TV besides wrestling (all other series that interest me I buy on DVD) so I'm not sure it's worth me getting...I'm still getting used to the new hours though, so maybe it'll clear up to the point where I can go in a bit later, or not sleep through the shows...

We'll see though....You never know...

[Splattercat]

knapik said:

You totally just quoted Transformers, 'Cat

And yes...yes I did...I even geeked out to the point that I had to check the episode number on the back of the DVD boxset (I own the whole series) so I didn't misquote...

[ringsyde]

swarm said:

So when TNA blatantly craps the bed not a single TNA mark on these boards enters into the discussion?

you're all there to freak out when I claim they suck...

but when they prove me right...you're nowhere to be heard from.

so for future references, if you can't be a fan of your fed when their down, then I don't see the point of jumping all over people who think the show sucks.

I just wanted to point that out.

edit: ok I take that back. Cakejedi has a great post. sorry buddy. but where are the usual suspects?

I'll make the simple disclaimer that I'm a fan of good wrestling moreso than I am a fan of TNA, WWE, New Japan or any fed.

That said, consider the fact that one of my favorite bands is Steely Dan. They've had a pretty solid legacy of group and individual success, and they are household names in a small sector of the music world, thanks in large part to great hits such as "Reelin in the Years" and "Hey 19".

But guess what? The Backstreet Boys and 98 Degrees both won more awards and sold more albums than the guys responsible for "Reelin in the Years", "Peg", "Hey Nineteen", "FM" and a host of rock standards. For the record, the same "boy bands" laid the smackdown on Disturbed, Mobb Deep, Allen Jackson and a host of other infinitely better and more auspicious performers.

Does that make the BS Boys and 98 Degrees better . . . . or just more successful at marketing and appeal - and locking up the attention of the core/target audience?

I think TNA has a huge upside (young talent, a fresh perspective and a lot of potential), and an equally dire downside (they haven't done enough of anything to make people believe or care, and every great match is pre/postceded by a lot of fluff, stupidity and garbage). That they earned a 1.0 is a shock to me because, frankly, I had them well below.

The low rating doesn't mean they suck; the 1.0 means not enough people know - or care to kow - that TNA is making it's move from the absolute abyss (no pun intended) to the very outer realm of the world that the WWE has had sole claim to for nearly eight years now (or 30 years, depending on whose perspective you view this all through).

[Big Bri]

ringsyde said:

swarm said:

So when TNA blatantly craps the bed not a single TNA mark on these boards enters into the discussion?

you're all there to freak out when I claim they suck...

but when they prove me right...you're nowhere to be heard from.

so for future references, if you can't be a fan of your fed when their down, then I don't see the point of jumping all over people who think the show sucks.

I just wanted to point that out.

edit: ok I take that back. Cakejedi has a great post. sorry buddy. but where are the usual suspects?

I'll make the simple disclaimer that I'm a fan of good wrestling moreso than I am a fan of TNA, WWE, New Japan or any fed.

That said, consider the fact that one of my favorite bands is Steely Dan. They've had a pretty solid legacy of group and individual success, and they are household names in a small sector of the music world, thanks in large part to great hits such as "Reelin in the Years" and "Hey 19".

But guess what? The Backstreet Boys and 98 Degrees both won more awards and sold more albums than the guys responsible for "Reelin in the Years", "Peg", "Hey Nineteen", "FM" and a host of rock standards. For the record, the same "boy bands" laid the smackdown on Disturbed, Mobb Deep, Allen Jackson and a host of other infinitely better and more auspicious performers.

Does that make the BS Boys and 98 Degrees better . . . . or just more successful at marketing and appeal - and locking up the attention of the core/target audience?

I think TNA has a huge upside (young talent, a fresh perspective and a lot of potential), and an equally dire downside (they haven't done enough of anything to make people believe or care, and every great match is pre/postceded by a lot of fluff, stupidity and garbage). That they earned a 1.0 is a shock to me because, frankly, I had them well below.

The low rating doesn't mean they suck; the 1.0 means not enough people know - or care to kow - that TNA is making it's move from the absolute abyss (no pun intended) to the very outer realm of the world that the WWE has had sole claim to for nearly eight years now (or 30 years, depending on whose perspective you view this all through).

Great post Rings. Steely Dan rules. I just downloaded "Dirty Work" last night.

[Joe]

There were actually two threads where I thought about posting this, but I decided to do it here since I just read it.

It's impossible to compare music or films to professional wrestling. In the "WWE vs. TNA" thread, Highway 61 made similar comparisons as Ringsyde did above, and pointed out the artistic importance of pro wrestling versus its bottom line. Both of the posters I mentioned are cool and bring a lot to this forum, but I have to disagree with the comparisons.

Music, when first invented, had objectives other than to turn a profit. It probably was not until the 20th Century when people began to worry about marketing and making money off of music. Even today, there are departments of major labels that are set up just to give artists a voice to be heard, with little concern of how much money those artists make for the label.

There are legitimate academies that award musicians for the quality of their work, regardless of how many albums they may sell.

Movies are similar. Studio heads even make comments that summer blockbusters are made, in part, so the same studios can fund movies that may never come close to turning a profit but are stories that the execs and producers want to see told on film.

Regardless of how much money a movie may take in, if they get presented an Oscar in March, they are considered a success of some kind.

Professional wrestling stems from the carnie circuits and all they were ever concerned with was the bottom line. Pro wrestling was created with only one purpose: Make money.

It is very possible that no promoter has ever really cared about anything other than making money off of pro wrestling.

Different wrestlers may bring different things to the table, but every one of those wrestlers has one objective: Use his abilities to draw a crowd. If that ability is talking, and he can draw more money than another guy can by chain-wrestling, then the talker will be the one held in higher regard and earn more money.

[gatekeeper]

joe said:

There were actually two threads where I thought about posting this, but I decided to do it here since I just read it.

It's impossible to compare music or films to professional wrestling. In the "WWE vs. TNA" thread, Highway 61 made similar comparisons as Ringsyde did above, and pointed out the artistic importance of pro wrestling versus its bottom line. Both of the posters I mentioned are cool and bring a lot to this forum, but I have to disagree with the comparisons.

Music, when first invented, had objectives other than to turn a profit. It probably was not until the 20th Century when people began to worry about marketing and making money off of music. Even today, there are departments of major labels that are set up just to give artists a voice to be heard, with little concern of how much money those artists make for the label.

There are legitimate academies that award musicians for the quality of their work, regardless of how many albums they may sell.

Movies are similar. Studio heads even make comments that summer blockbusters are made, in part, so the same studios can fund movies that may never come close to turning a profit but are stories that the execs and producers want to see told on film.

Regardless of how much money a movie may take in, if they get presented an Oscar in March, they are considered a success of some kind.

Professional wrestling stems from the carnie circuits and all they were ever concerned with was the bottom line. Pro wrestling was created with only one purpose: Make money.

It is very possible that no promoter has ever really cared about anything other than making money off of pro wrestling.

Different wrestlers may bring different things to the table, but every one of those wrestlers has one objective: Use his abilities to draw a crowd. If that ability is talking, and he can draw more money than another guy can by chain-wrestling, then the talker will be the one held in higher regard and earn more money.

Maybe the best post ever.

Ultra strong, Joe!

[bmurderh8s]

feed the smarks to the lions.

[josharpie99]

I don't get it....why does it see that some people on here root against TNA from doing well? I am rooting for solid competion these days. It has been seven LONG years since wrestling programming kept me hooked longer than one month! Yes, I marked when Hogan and Rock squared off in 2002, and a few times since. But it's been since 1998/99 when things were fresh in this industry. At that time, lemme see, ummmm...it was the Monday Night Wars. Two main federations going at it (well, really, it was 96-98).

I used to love the WWE. I hung on every promo the Rock had. I marked everytime Stone Cold's glass broke. I was a HUGE D-X fan. Today? What is there? Nothing like it was from 96-99. I credit everything to competion.

Now, we stand up and clap because TNA drew a 1.0 rating? As a wrestling fan who wants to see this industry become "cool" again in the public eye and at colleges/universities across the country, I say FOR SHAME!

I just wish either WWE, TNA, or whatever, would produce something fresh, fun and intriguing that will allow pro wrestling to reclaim it's glory days of 96-99. Bring back some sort of promotion-vs.-promotion war. Something. Anything.

Anyone remember the 8.0 RAW drew during the Rock-n-Sock Connection segment, I believe, in 99? I do. Today, RAW is lucky to approach a 4.0. And we cheer when their competition hits a 1.0.

Again, FOR SHAME