Roxxi deserves a damn push already

[Kaedon]

You asked if the Knockouts fill the IZ. I answered, and gave a counterpoint that you have yet to address.

And then when I proved you wrong, again, you whine that I am going off topic.

You're saying that there were legal shows on the air in the past? Okay, I know that, now what exactly is your point?

My point is, the airwaves, as you say, are NEVER "full". Competition, trying to one up, trying to take an existing formula and modifying it is how TV evolves.

I'm saying that the airwaves are already full NOW, not that they were at some point in the past. Networks are weary about taking on wrestling based on the declining popularity coupled with the fact that we've already seen a multimillion dollar company go bankrupt at a peak of wrestling's popularity.

Wrestling Popularity hasnt "declined" for a while. Its been consistently in the 3s/4s for a few years now.

I've yet to see a miltimillion dollar legal drama go belly up, but then, i've never seen a legal drama that cost that much to begin with.

Raising The Bar.

See above. You just proved that when a market is full, new shows like Shark and Canterbury's Law can't survive more than one season. Plus, the second half of above, just paste it here.

Too bad the shows I named either went on for multiple seasons and/or are still going on. Once again, you know dick about TV ratings.

This is addressed later in the post, as the "competition" is really of different genres. ROH brings nothing that WWE and TNA don't give us already, so networks don't want to take that big a risk, for reasons outlined, once again, above.

Actually ROH does bring something that WWE doesnt. The problem with that is, not many people WANT to see that.

Kong, perhaps not more popular, but her segments DO tend to draw more, which you'd know if you looked at the ratings. Besides, a Knockouts brand's big star power? TNA. They've already got their foot in the network's door, they've got financial backing, they've got the high ratings to back them up, and they offer something fresh and new to the network that can't be seen anywhere else, which is why Spike is receptive of the idea.

Which is why they were thinking about doing it months if not a year ago, and it hasnt happened yet because despite what you might think, women cant draw.

Sex and the City was primarily marketed towards women, unless you're a fan of designer boots and handbags, And again, see above.

Nope but some men will tune in to see hot chicks, even if one of their faces looks like a foot.

I do watch this show regularly, but nonetheless, see above.

Yes and you said sex isnt hardly ever brought up on TV now a days, I've seen at least 20 different eps of this and Charlie is fucking or talking about fucking or hanging with a hot chick every show. Just because its rated low doesnt mean its not sexual. The fact of the matter is, now a days sex is a lot more accepted than it used to be, which is why its passable in such "PG" arenas.

Yes, exactly, sex doesn't sell in and of itself. Thank you. That's why sexualized women's wrestling tanks in the ratings, while the Knockouts continue to dominate the iMPACT! ratings week after week. That was the whole point of this discussion before you started taking us on tangeants involving a British girl with clean teeth selling gum to a guy buried in the sand, and FOX sitcoms.

See, you took out of it what you wanted. I said sex in and of itself doesnt sell for long. It can work for thirty seconds. Even if its an attractive woman saying "buy this". People make an unconscious connection that says "if I use that, I will get chicks like that" and it works, which is why it continues to work over and over again. What you are failing to realize is that anything that has to do with women in tights and snug tops that have their tits showing, which is what the KOs are. They arent ALL ABOUT that, but that is a huge part of it. You think that the Divas and KOs get spikes in ratings at times because of their workrate? That is the most Blue notion I have ever heard.

Kaedon, for the last time, look at the damn ratings. Stop spouting off and actually do some research. You might not like the Knockouts, and good for you, but the ratings prove that the majority of people do. It's as simple as that.

The majority. See this is where you fail to see how SMALL your mind is. "The majority" is not of people or even of wrestling fans, its of people who tune into TNA Impact. Do you have any idea how small that is on the grand scheme of things? Or even how small it is if and when the spike comes on WWE tv?

 

[gashface]

For fuck sake, stop arguing about something you're never going to agree on. I think this should just be closed to stop people fighting over the last word.

 

[Tsaalyo Phoenix]

And then when I proved you wrong, again, you whine that I am going off topic.

How did you prove me wrong if you never even addressed the counterpoint I made?

My point is, the airwaves, as you say, are NEVER "full". Competition, trying to one up, trying to take an existing formula and modifying it is how TV evolves.

Yes, that's what Joe Blow who comes up with the show idea does. It's up to the networks to decide whether or not they want to take that risk, invest all that money, and give up two hours of prime time for the new idea. Without all the points I made that ROH lacks but TNA had, a network isn't going to take such a big risk on an industry that already killed a multimillion dollar industry at a peak of wrestling's popularity.

Wrestling Popularity hasnt "declined" for a while. Its been consistently in the 3s/4s for a few years now.

It's MUCH more towards the low 3s as of late, some days even sinking to 2. No, not just two weeks ago because of football. Several times it has gone to 2 just because. No wrestlers are household names anymore. John Cena is almost there, but no, he's nowhere near the Rock, Stone Cold, or Hogan. Wrestling is nowhere near where it used to be in terms of popularity.

Raising The Bar.

I somehow doubt that show is owned by a multimillion dollar company. But if it is, good for it. The key point is, and i've said this several times already, that networks treat this new "hour long drama" fad a lot differently than a new professional wrestling program. You're comparing entirely different things.

Too bad the shows I named either went on for multiple seasons and/or are still going on. Once again, you know dick about TV ratings.

See above.

Actually ROH does bring something that WWE doesnt. The problem with that is, not many people WANT to see that.

What does ROH bring that's s different? The shaking hands thing? The simple fact that there are DIFFERENT wrestlers involved? To the networks it's same thing, different wrapper.

Which is why they were thinking about doing it months if not a year ago, and it hasnt happened yet because despite what you might think, women cant draw.

Did you flat out ignore my "Dixie Carter walks into a Spike TV" office example? This doesn't happen overnight. Spike TV never once said no to the idea or said anything even close to that. The offer is still on the table, but it takes years for Spike's other obligations to be fulfilled before they can just give away two hours of prime time a week.

And as I've said a million times, Kaedon, look at the ratings.

Nope but some men will tune in to see hot chicks, even if one of their faces looks like a foot.

Ok, so that explains maybe 0.15 of the show's overall ratings. Once again, see by replies pertaining to comparing hour long fads to professional wrestling and trying to act like networks treat them the same way.

Yes and you said sex isnt hardly ever brought up on TV now a days, I've seen at least 20 different eps of this and Charlie is fucking or talking about fucking or hanging with a hot chick every show. Just because its rated low doesnt mean its not sexual. The fact of the matter is, now a days sex is a lot more accepted than it used to be, which is why its passable in such "PG" arenas.

Ok, for one, sex is not shown. And most importantly, a half-hour sitcom is not professional wrestling.

See, you took out of it what you wanted. I said sex in and of itself doesnt sell for long. It can work for thirty seconds. Even if its an attractive woman saying "buy this". People make an unconscious connection that says "if I use that, I will get chicks like that" and it works, which is why it continues to work over and over again. What you are failing to realize is that anything that has to do with women in tights and snug tops that have their tits showing, which is what the KOs are. They arent ALL ABOUT that, but that is a huge part of it. You think that the Divas and KOs get spikes in ratings at times because of their workrate? That is the most Blue notion I have ever heard.

Did I deny that girls sell beer commercials? Point out where I did, please. Quote it for us all to see. No, I just choose to ignore the irrelevant rather than affirm it to prove an off-tangeant point I never denied that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Divas do NOT get spikes in ratings. Kaedon, look at a ratings breakdown, you'd save us all a big headache. As for the Knockouts, i've yet to see even one nipple outline. What I DO see is Roxxi coming out in that modest voodoo thing for most of her career and even now dressing in realistic athletic attire, ODB coming out in jeans and some kind of heavy khaki top, and Kong being Kong. As for TBP, Angelina Love is in realistic athletic attire. Velvet tends to dress in less, but we don't see her as much because she's not as popular. The key point here is that the Knockouts dress in pants and an appropriately covering top, because they are athletes and dress the part. If you get your jollies off that, good for you. The point is, they cover themselves much more and put on fantastic matches, beating the hell out of each other in real feuds and real matches, and they dominate TNA's ratings. The Divas come out in purposefully revealing things and mostly just pull each other's hair, botch half the moves, hit crotch thesz presses, and scream, and they therefore do not draw. Do I think the Knockouts dominate the ratings because of their workrate? Of course; it's blatantly obvious.

The majority. See this is where you fail to see how SMALL your mind is. "The majority" is not of people or even of wrestling fans, its of people who tune into TNA Impact. Do you have any idea how small that is on the grand scheme of things? Or even how small it is if and when the spike comes on WWE tv?

As I said previously, TNA doesn't have 3.0 exposure. The majority of people who KNOW about TNA and therefore watch it are the reason the Knockouts dominate the ratings. In statistics, it's called a sample group, and in it we see that the Knockouts dominate the ratings, period. Do some research, so you don't try to argue about something you know nothing about and end up doing something like saying that Nikki innovated a leg drop, and then deny that she innovated anything regardless of everyone telling you otherwise and proof if it easily found if you did the slightest bit of reading before you opened your mouth. TNA typically gets 1.1 now, RAW typically gets 3.2 or 3.3, so that's a third of the total group telling us that the Knockouts dominate. Any logical person would expand that data and call it fact. And before you say "ooohh but only 1.1 of people watch TNA!", only 1.1 of people KNOW ABOUT TNA. TNA does not have WWE's exposure, which is why their ratings are lower. It has nothing to do with the product; it has everything to do with TNA's biggest advertising move was having Dr. House watching TNA for five seconds during an episode of HIS show.

For fuck sake, stop arguing about something you're never going to agree on. I think this should just be closed to stop people fighting over the last word.

Lol. You know, you're right, this thread has gone way off topic. Sorry, everyone, this'll be my last post not related to the first post. Let's all talk about what chessarmy said again.

 

[Kaedon]

How did you prove me wrong if you never even addressed the counterpoint I made?

Which point, the point that the tickets are indeed free and it is therefore hard to determine from the live response who truly is over and who isnt or the point that people who show up are more than likely wrestling fans?

Yes, that's what Joe Blow who comes up with the show idea does. It's up to the networks to decide whether or not they want to take that risk, invest all that money, and give up two hours of prime time for the new idea.

God thats the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You're talking as if no one takes chances in television, which is just plain wrong.

Without all the points I made that ROH lacks but TNA had, a network isn't going to take such a big risk on an industry that already killed a multimillion dollar industry at a peak of wrestling's popularity.

This makes no sense. HOw can an industry kill an industry?

It's MUCH more towards the low 3s as of late, some days even sinking to 2. No, not just two weeks ago because of football. Several times it has gone to 2 just because. No wrestlers are household names anymore. John Cena is almost there, but no, he's nowhere near the Rock, Stone Cold, or Hogan. Wrestling is nowhere near where it used to be in terms of popularity.

Youre right, wrestling hasnt had a boom period in a while, that doesnt mean its still not popular. Its still one of the highest rated shows on cable. Its been at the same relative level for at least 4-6 years now.

I somehow doubt that show is owned by a multimillion dollar company. But if it is, good for it. The key point is, and i've said this several times already, that networks treat this new "hour long drama" fad a lot differently than a new professional wrestling program. You're comparing entirely different things.

Youre the one who is talking about creative spectrum scarcity. If you dont want to go there because you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, dont bring it up.

What does ROH bring that's s different? The shaking hands thing? The simple fact that there are DIFFERENT wrestlers involved? To the networks it's same thing, different wrapper.

Longer matches, more technical matches, more bumps, and general variety. Not saying any of that is GOOD, but Im saying the way those things are executed in ROH is drastically different from that of TNA or WWE.

Did you flat out ignore my "Dixie Carter walks into a Spike TV" office example? This doesn't happen overnight. Spike TV never once said no to the idea or said anything even close to that. The offer is still on the table, but it takes years for Spike's other obligations to be fulfilled before they can just give away two hours of prime time a week.

It doesnt happen over night, it doesnt even apparently happen over almost a year and it will NEVER happen because women dont draw.

Ok, so that explains maybe 0.15 of the show's overall ratings. Once again, see by replies pertaining to comparing hour long fads to professional wrestling and trying to act like networks treat them the same way.

So now when I prove you wrong, "its irrelevant". Gotcha.

Ok, for one, sex is not shown. And most importantly, a half-hour sitcom is not professional wrestling.

Really, name a time on Baywatch when sex was shown? Or on any show on network TV?

Did I deny that girls sell beer commercials? Point out where I did, please. Quote it for us all to see.

No, you said sex doesnt sell on TV because all women are portrayed as intelligent, sophisticated, and blah blah.

No, I just choose to ignore the irrelevant rather than affirm it to prove an off-tangeant point I never denied that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You ignore when you get proven wrong.

Divas do NOT get spikes in ratings. Kaedon, look at a ratings breakdown, you'd save us all a big headache.

Really? Never once? Divas NEVER do?

As for the Knockouts, i've yet to see even one nipple outline. What I DO see is Roxxi coming out in that modest voodoo thing for most of her career and even now dressing in realistic athletic attire, ODB coming out in jeans and some kind of heavy khaki top, and Kong being Kong. As for TBP, Angelina Love is in realistic athletic attire. Velvet tends to dress in less, but we don't see her as much because she's not as popular.

No sexual connotation there....

Or there....

These women are SERIOUS ATHLETES!

The apex of conservatism....

As I said previously, TNA doesn't have 3.0 exposure.

So the reason TNA and the KOs arent as popular is because they arent as popular? 3.0 exposure what are you on crack? No show starts off at its highest rating, but it works its way up and then down, and then up again, and then down, and then up again. Well most shows, that doesnt include IMPACT which as been in the .7-1.2 ratings forever.

The majority of people who KNOW about TNA and therefore watch it are the reason the Knockouts dominate the ratings. In statistics, it's called a sample group, and in it we see that the Knockouts dominate the ratings, period.

So if you go to the ocean and take a cup of water out with no fish in it, does that mean there are no fish in the ocean?

Do some research, so you don't try to argue about something you know nothing about and end up doing something like saying that Nikki innovated a leg drop, and then deny that she innovated anything regardless of everyone telling you otherwise and proof if it easily found if you did the slightest bit of reading before you opened your mouth.

So you are denying that her finisher resembles the Low Down and the finisher used by Lance Cade?

TNA typically gets 1.1 now, RAW typically gets 3.2 or 3.3, so that's a third of the total group telling us that the Knockouts dominate.

So now youre telling me that the only reason EVERYONE watches TNA is because of the KOs. Because for that to be correct, everyone in that 1.1 has to be watching because of the KOs, otherwise, its a portion of that 1.1.

Any logical person would expand that data and call it fact

If by "expand" you mean "warp to fit your idiotic argument".

And before you say "ooohh but only 1.1 of people watch TNA!", only 1.1 of people KNOW ABOUT TNA. TNA does not have WWE's exposure, which is why their ratings are lower. It has nothing to do with the product; it has everything to do with TNA's biggest advertising move was having Dr. House watching TNA for five seconds during an episode of HIS show.

Really? I thought the multiple mentions on Best Damn, ESPN, and adverts during WWE tv were bigger than 5 second on House.

 

[Soulpower]

Or there....

Whoa, Kaedon.. You can continue this discussion if you want, but don't be taking shots at Melissa :shifty: Besides, she's not even a part of the TNA roster (Not officially).

 

[monkeystyle]

Monkey, how exactly is Roxxi looking foolish? I think he's the one who is right, the TNA KNOCKOUTS have been a major draw for TNA.

So large a draw they've increased ratings!

They are consistently pulling in the highest rated segments on iMPACT!.

lol. Being a standout in a sea of shit does not mean a damned thing.

Whether or not Knockouts can draw by themselves we all can't argue about, because it hasn't even happened yet.

Shimmer and GLOW care to disagree.

 

[monkeystyle]

For fuck sake, stop arguing about something you're never going to agree on. I think this should just be closed to stop people fighting over the last word.

What?

This is a discussion forum. I dunno if you missed that part or not. They are not doing anything that requires me to close this. (Which for the record I would not do anyway, I would just move it.)

Also, y'know the whole 'If you don't like it, don't watch it' maxim? I suggest you do the same and not read it if you don't like it.

 

[chessarmy]

Monkey, how exactly is Roxxi looking foolish? I think he's the one who is right, the TNA KNOCKOUTS have been a major draw for TNA.

So large a draw they've increased ratings!

They are consistently pulling in the highest rated segments on iMPACT!.

lol. Being a standout in a sea of shit does not mean a damned thing.

Whether or not Knockouts can draw by themselves we all can't argue about, because it hasn't even happened yet.

Shimmer and GLOW care to disagree.

1-Actually, the TNA Knockouts are consistently pulling in the highest rated segments on the iMPACT! broadcast. So, that means the majority of the people that watch TNA watch it to see the Knockouts. Which means that the Knockouts are a big part of TNA.

2-I'm not sure what you mean by this. Everyone on here loves to assume that the entire TNA product is shit. It really isn't, they are actually doing a pretty good job of making the product enjoyable right now. If you saw the angle on last week's iMPACT! you'd know what I'm talking about. Russo is starting to write up some great storylines, combine that with the great wrestling that we see from TNA, and you've got a great product. It isn't perfect, but it isn't "shit" either. And as for the actual roster, the Knockouts are pulling in the highest rated segments over guys like Booker T, Jeff Jarrett, Sting, Samoa Joe, AJ Styles, and all of TNA's top draws. Doesn't that mean SOMETHING?

3-Both are indie promotions that have no intention of going main stream.

 

[Moonlight Drive]

I actually classify four minutes of wrestling in one hour pretty shitty. I classify constant run-ins and screwy finishes shitty. I classify random teamings and gimmick matches with no history being tossed onto PPV (See: BFG 2008). I classify random run-ins with no motivation or reason (See:Team 3D attacking Matt Morgan). I classify having a guy who wrestles once a year Main eventing you biggest show 3 years running pretty shitty.

And you know what REALLY proves how shitty TNA is at the moment? All the big stars you just mentioned are getting beaten by womens wrestling. Jarrett, Booker, Sting, Joe, Styles, none of them are drawing at all. Some people like womens wrestling, I know, but when you have big stars like that and they're getting beaten by women, I classify that as shitty.

It's not that the Knockouts are that incredible, it's that the rest of the show is next to mediocre.

 

[monkeystyle]

1-Actually, the TNA Knockouts are consistently pulling in the highest rated segments on the iMPACT! broadcast. So, that means the majority of the people that watch TNA watch it to see the Knockouts. Which means that the Knockouts are a big part of TNA.

K, that is fine, but that means nothing. TNA's ratings have not increased. All that means is the Knockouts are holding the fans you have left. Nobody new is coming in, but apparently there are people leaving.

2-I'm not sure what you mean by this. Everyone on here loves to assume that the entire TNA product is shit. It really isn't, they are actually doing a pretty good job of making the product enjoyable right now. If you saw the angle on last week's iMPACT! you'd know what I'm talking about. Russo is starting to write up some great storylines, combine that with the great wrestling that we see from TNA, and you've got a great product. It isn't perfect, but it isn't "shit" either. And as for the actual roster, the Knockouts are pulling in the highest rated segments over guys like Booker T, Jeff Jarrett, Sting, Samoa Joe, AJ Styles, and all of TNA's top draws. Doesn't that mean SOMETHING?

K, I dunno if you believe this because your expectations have been so lowered by this point you consider that entertaining, but yeah. I sat though about fifteen minutes last Thursday before it got turned off. Maybe I am just picky, but I want to be entertained, not numbed.

3-Both are indie promotions that have no intention of going main stream.

lol naivite.

Can you honestly tell me that they would not jump at it if given the chance?

 

[chessarmy]

I actually classify four minutes of wrestling in one hour pretty shitty. I classify constant run-ins and screwy finishes shitty. I classify random teamings and gimmick matches with no history being tossed onto PPV (See: BFG 2008). I classify random run-ins with no motivation or reason (See:Team 3D attacking Matt Morgan). I classify having a guy who wrestles once a year Main eventing you biggest show 3 years running pretty shitty.

Not exactly 4 minutes, most iMPACT! matches are at least 6-10 minutes. Not to mention all the great matches we get to see on PPV. Random gimmicks with no history? Not sure what you mean by that, there has already been a Steel Asylum match at the Sacrifice PPV. And if you ask me, I think its a pretty cool concept. Its like an Ultimate X match, someone the entire IWC seems to be a mark for. The random run ins is a problem, you have a point there. But as for the Sting thing, I really don't think its that bad. Sting will end up putting Joe over, and who knows? Maybe this IS his last match? Plus, with the way storylines are going right now, the match makes sense. Sure, Sting is main eventing for a 3rd time. But there is a big chance that he's going to lose, and imagine how big of a superstar Samoa Joe will look like if he does get the win over Sting at BFG.

And you know what REALLY proves how shitty TNA is at the moment? All the big stars you just mentioned are getting beaten by womens wrestling. Jarrett, Booker, Sting, Joe, Styles, none of them are drawing at all. Some people like womens wrestling, I know, but when you have big stars like that and they're getting beaten by women, I classify that as shitty.

Maybe people actually enjoy the womens wrestling so much that they tune in just to see it? People like Roxxi are obviously more interested in womens wrestling then mens, so maybe they are just interested in the Knockouts?


Imo, people are just hating on TNA just to be a part of the crowd. I really have no idea how people refuse to give them credit when they do something good. Barely anyone talks about the last 3 PPVs and how they were great. Nobody mentions the awesome storyline we have been getting with the Old School guys vs young guns. Nobody mentions the numerous match of the year candidates from Joe vs Angle at Lockdown, to all the great X-Division title matches that we've seen over the year. Nobody mentions the two AWESOME Kurt Angle vs AJ Styles matches that we saw. Nobody mentions how TNA saved the Dutt/Lethal feud by giving us an awesome Ladder match. Nobody mentions how TNA is planning a Kurt Angle vs Jeff Jarrett match, which could be a classic match up. Nobody mentions how Mick Foley has come to TNA, and most of all. Nobody even cares to mention that Samoa Joe, someone that everyone wanted to get pushed, is the TNA World Heavyweight Champion, and how he will be main eventing Bound For Glory for the first time in his career.

What I'm saying is, everyone should try look at the GOOD for once. All I hear, everywhere I go is how shitty it is. In reality, TNA Wrestling's product is exactly what it should be at the moment. They are giving us the right feuds/storylines, they are going to put over the future of the company, and they are doing a great job of building up Bound For Glory. I'm sure they are going to minimize the amount of run ins/screw job finished over the next few months especially after what Angle has said publicly.

And just to cap it all off, TNA is far from perfect. The only reason I don't point out there flaws as much as everyone else, is because...well, I already said it. Everyone else already does, and its no use. I'm one of the few people on here that takes what TNA gives me, and I find a way to enjoy it. Maybe less things about wrestling bother me, maybe I'm not a bitchy fan like most other people. I for one, am enjoying the TNA product, AND the WWE product for that matter, and I don't see the need to complain about it as much as everyone else does

 

[Moonlight Drive]

Not exactly 4 minutes, most iMPACT! matches are at least 6-10 minutes. Not to mention all the great matches we get to see on PPV. Random gimmicks with no history? Not sure what you mean by that, there has already been a Steel Asylum match at the Sacrifice PPV. And if you ask me, I think its a pretty cool concept. Its like an Ultimate X match, someone the entire IWC seems to be a mark for. The random run ins is a problem, you have a point there. But as for the Sting thing, I really don't think its that bad. Sting will end up putting Joe over, and who knows? Maybe this IS his last match? Plus, with the way storylines are going right now, the match makes sense. Sure, Sting is main eventing for a 3rd time. But there is a big chance that he's going to lose, and imagine how big of a superstar Samoa Joe will look like if he does get the win over Sting at BFG.

4 minutes was to reference a couple of weeks ago (Abyss vs Christian). but the fact remains, so what if sting puts Joe over. At least he could have wrestled a couple matches before then to prove he deserved it at least. It is the equivalent of putting Ric Flair vs Randy Orton at WM 24 when Flair hadn't wrestled a match since WM 23. And I doubt Joe will become that big of a star, seeing as Sting has wrestled what, 3 matches in 1 year?

On the biggest show of the year, how can you jusitfy just chucking random things on the card, like that tag team tournament? I'm all for the Steel Asylum, but at least build it up a bit, I don't know, qualifiers, at least announced who is in the match when you announced it for Gods sake.

Maybe people actually enjoy the womens wrestling so much that they tune in just to see it? People like Roxxi are obviously more interested in womens wrestling then mens, so maybe they are just interested in the Knockouts?

Yes that is true and a valid point, but that is without a doubt the minority of fans. Ask anyone on IWF whether they would rather watch mens or womens wrestling, and the majority would say mens. And I for one would't be too happy if I was one of TNA's biggest stars and I was getting beaten by the Knockouts.

Imo, people are just hating on TNA just to be a part of the crowd. I really have no idea how people refuse to give them credit when they do something good. Barely anyone talks about the last 3 PPVs and how they were great. Nobody mentions the awesome storyline we have going with the Old School guys vs young guns. Nobody mentions the numerous match of the year candidates from Joe vs Angle at Lockdown, to all the great X-Division title matches that we've seen over the year. Nobody mentions how TNA saved the Dutt/Lethal feud by giving us an awesome Ladder match. Nobody mentions how TNA is planning a Kurt Angle vs Jeff Jarrett match, which could be a classic match up.

What I'm saying is, everyone should try look at the GOOD for once. All I hear, everwhere I go is how shitty it is. In reality, TNA Wrestling's product is exactly what it should be at the moment. They are giving us the right feuds/storylines, they are going to put over the future of the company, and they are doing a great job of building up Bound For Glory. I'm sure they are going to minimize the amount of run ins/screw job finished over the next few months especially after what Angle has said publicly.

There are good parts of TNA, but the glaringly obvious is the bad points. It's just human society, we demand perfection and most people who are TNA Haters will jump on anything they do (I may appear to be one but I am not). But I get sick of sitting down and watching Impact nor a PPV and getting some weird fucking finish that ruins the match. TNA will ALWAYS be compared to the WWE, who have 3 shows, and at least once of those a week is a great show, if not all 3. So TNA's bad points are highlighted mainly because of the fact that the WWE usually gets it right. People demand Perfection more often than not, and TNA (and WWE) are far from it. A lot of people just like to complain.

And just to cap it all off, TNA is far from perfect. The only reason I don't point out there flaws as much as everyone else, is because...well, I already said it. Everyone else already does, and its no use. I'm one of the few people on here that takes what TNA gives me, and I find a way to enjoy it. Maybe less things about wrestling bother me, maybe I'm not a bitchy fan like most other people. I for one, am enjoying the TNA product, AND the WWE product for that matter, and I don't see the need to complain about it as much as everyone does

The problem is with TNA, the MAIN problem, looking past the others ones, is consistnecy. One week, we'll get a good show. Then the next week we'll have 15 minutes of wrestling in 2 hours. I suppose that is why I am a 'bitchy' TNA fan, when I sit down I want to watch a proper fucking show, I don't want pointless segments with no direction and meaning.

I for one cannot take something and find a way to enjoy it like you said. If I have to try and find a way, then there is no point is there. I feel the need to complain as I need to vent on my frsutrations. I want TNA to suceed, and I know they can, but they constantly fuck up time after time, and it just drags them down a peg every time.

 

[Tsaalyo Phoenix]

They are not doing anything that requires me to close this. (Which for the record I would not do anyway, I would just move it.)

So monkeystyle has decreed, so it shall be. Though I suggest you move this into a "Can women draw?" thread for HIAT or something, since we haven't talked about Nikki ever since we proved conclusively that Kaedon has no idea what he's talking about in that department.

"A leg drop." Christ on a cracker.

Which point, the point that the tickets are indeed free and it is therefore hard to determine from the live response who truly is over and who isnt or the point that people who show up are more than likely wrestling fans?

The latter. As I said, yes, tickets are free so anyone in Orlando can just stroll in and take a seat. But why would someone who doesn't like professional wrestling go and take hours out of his trip to Orlando to watch that which he doesn't enjoy? Every single person in the iMPACT! Zone in any given day is a wrestling fan, and given the ever increasing number of signs, most of them know what TNA is and therefore do represent who is and isn't over. The fact that who is and isn't cheered remains constant during PPVs on the road proves it. Speaking of, watch Lockdown last year, see the crowd turn electric over Roxxi.

God thats the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You're talking as if no one takes chances in television, which is just plain wrong.

Of course they take chances, but they need guarantees. The show has financial backing of its own, or has star power, or is something new/seldom done by anybody else, and the reward from it is so much greater than whatever they'd put in the timeslot instead that it's worth the risk of a flop. The idea of ROH going national means very little financial backing, no star power that anybody in the network board would care about or even know of, going against a billion dollar company that has already killed an equally large company so what the hell is a dinky little company going to do against them, and given the decline in wrestling's popularity recently a new one hour drama is a much better bet in terms of ratings and profit.

This makes no sense. HOw can an industry kill an industry?

Ack, misused words. What I meant was WWE killed WCW, which means see above.

Youre the one who is talking about creative spectrum scarcity. If you dont want to go there because you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, dont bring it up.

I don't know the cast and crew of the particular show, no, but I do know about the current fad of one hour dramas. I was talking about the show in THAT regard, not the individual selling points of the particular show.

Longer matches, more technical matches, more bumps, and general variety. Not saying any of that is GOOD, but Im saying the way those things are executed in ROH is drastically different from that of TNA or WWE.

Do you really think a network board, most or all of the members of which probably don't watch wrestling, really care about that? "Well... our matches are longer!" Yeah, not good enough. The selling points I listed above need to be fulfilled before any network will be willing to take a shot with ROH.

It doesnt happen over night, it doesnt even apparently happen over almost a year and it will NEVER happen because women dont draw.

TNA's ratings breakdowns disagree. Go look at them.

So now when I prove you wrong, "its irrelevant". Gotcha.

Ok, you know what? Fine. I, Roxxi Laveaux Fanboy, hereby submit to you all that Kaedon is 100% right when he says that there are men out there who watched Sex and the City.

Happy? It's still an entirely different type of programming from professional wrestling, and thus can't be compared to it. Besides, despite the minority of men who enjoyed that show, it was marketed and made for women. If you're going to argue that the selling point of the show was the sex appeal, then there sure are a lot of lesbians out there.

Really, name a time on Baywatch when sex was shown? Or on any show on network TV?

I never watched Baywatch, and though I can't name names, there ARE shows that will momentarily show the silhouettes of a couple that is concealed by the sheets, or othersuch scenes. This does not happen in Two and a Half Men. The selling point of that show is the sexual HUMOR, because it is a sitcom, you see. "Oooohhh Charlie equated trimming a rosebush to trimming Rose's bush, hahaha!" A show about sexual humor is vastly different from a show that tries to get ratings by showing women dressed in nothing. And yes, I know there is one episode where there were two girls on Charlie's deck in bikinis for like three minutes, but I hope you don't think that that's what the show is about.

No, you said sex doesnt sell on TV because all women are portrayed as intelligent, sophisticated, and blah blah.

TV as in actual programming, not beer commercials. Look at the women in the popular shows today. None of them are Baywatch whores. They're always doctors, or CSI's, or sarcastic wives, or Sarah Connor, etc.

You ignore when you get proven wrong.

Until you point out how Sex and the City is similar to ROH, yes, i'm ignoring it. This thread has gone off topic enough, don't make it worse, Mr. Impact Wrestling Forums Moderator.

Really? Never once? Divas NEVER do?

Is this where you grab some ratings sheet from March 26, 2007 and say "Ha! It increased in ratings from the previous thing!" I'm sure every so often the viewership DOES increase ten or twenty thousand, yes. But if you look at the AVERAGE RATINGS, no the Divas don't draw.

No sexual connotation there....

No, not really. Go find a picture of their using the ropes during the entrance. But i'll just pretend that that's what this picture depicts so I can respond to it anyway.

Angelina Love and Velvet Sky have the GIMMICK of being sluts, and even with that, they dress more modestly than the Divas. Not only that, but they're still VERY talented (well, Angelina moreso, which is why Velvet is a seldom-used jobber), and they get a lot of heat for their actions. I don't see people yelling "YEEAAH, KICK ODB'S ASS, SHE'S WEARING TOO MUCH!!" They get a heel reaction, while Roxxi went out there during her heel career looking as unattractive as Nikki is capable, and yet she got so over they had to turn her face. They had no reason to cheer Nikki, she was being an ass to all the faces; but still, the crowds pretty much demanded a face turn. Goes to show you that wearing nothing does not draw anymore.

Or there....

I've seen more revealing cheerleader outfits in high school. Yes, "cheerleader ooohhh fap fap." Someone that desperate is going to jack off to any woman wearing anything. She's clearly dressed to compete, not to show off her rack. And if you watched her rip her opponents apart in the ring, you sure as hell would not claim that she's sexualized.

These women are SERIOUS ATHLETES!

Wow, when did THIS happen on iMPACT!?

If you're going to point out things that they do off camera, you should go for the meatier stuff and post the cover of Shelly's fetish porn video. What they do off screen has no bearing on what they do in the ring. When a Knockout poses for playboy or makes a sex video, it is never mentioned in any way, shape, or form on iMPACT!. The Knockouts are all about kicking ass. What they do off the air has absolutely no effect on the show. It's never brought up, never mentioned, ever. But the Divas bring it up to such a degree that storylines are based on it. The Knockouts draw and the Divas don't. Not a coincidence.

The apex of conservatism....

See above.

So the reason TNA and the KOs arent as popular is because they arent as popular? 3.0 exposure what are you on crack? No show starts off at its highest rating, but it works its way up and then down, and then up again, and then down, and then up again. Well most shows, that doesnt include IMPACT which as been in the .7-1.2 ratings forever.

If you could not respond to individual sentences, that'd be great, as I built on and explained this point immediately afterwards and therefore rendered your response here irrelevant.

So if you go to the ocean and take a cup of water out with no fish in it, does that mean there are no fish in the ocean?

No, but if you take a third of the ocean and there's no fish in it, any statistician would conclude with a high degree of certainty that there are no fish in the ocean. Again, I mentioned the "one third" part later. Respond to my whole arguments, not segmented portions that can't hold water without the explanations that follow almost immediately.

So you are denying that her finisher resembles the Low Down and the finisher used by Lance Cade?

You'll have to post a clip of the Low Down, because as I understand it the Low Down is D'lo's frog splash. And if that's it, then yes, I do deny it. And yes, some moves may look similar to other moves. But if you actually looked at two similar-appearing moves, you'd know that they're actually totally different. Are you arguing that Nikki didn't innovate anything because it looks somewhat similar to a spinebuster that Lance Cade has been using for a year?

So now youre telling me that the only reason EVERYONE watches TNA is because of the KOs. Because for that to be correct, everyone in that 1.1 has to be watching because of the KOs, otherwise, its a portion of that 1.1.

As I explained by turning it around earlier and asking if Triple H has ever filled an arena ONLY by the promise of HIM AND ONLY HIM IN THE ARENA, NO OTHER MATCHES, no, i'm not saying that. No single match is responsible for any total viewership - the promise of that brand of professional wrestling is what does the job. But as you'd see if you looked at the ratings, the Knockouts are ALWAYS the highest rated segment, or right up next to it. They do not lose viewers, simple as that.

If by "expand" you mean "warp to fit your idiotic argument".

So if you take a sample group of one third of the total focus group, you'd be totally idiotic to assume that their opinions are similar to the total? Wow, you just spit in the face of every statistician in the world, but hey, I guess you know better. Kaedon, take a stats class.

Really? I thought the multiple mentions on Best Damn, ESPN, and adverts during WWE tv were bigger than 5 second on House.

Yes, they get a few little shoutouts, that's why TNA isn't dead. But a simple mention is hardly the same level of advertising that WWE puts out. As for TNA commercials during a WWE brand, i've yet to see one.

 

[Kaedon]

The latter. As I said, yes, tickets are free so anyone in Orlando can just stroll in and take a seat. But why would someone who doesn't like professional wrestling go and take hours out of his trip to Orlando to watch that which he doesn't enjoy? Every single person in the iMPACT! Zone in any given day is a wrestling fan, and given the ever increasing number of signs, most of them know what TNA is and therefore do represent who is and isn't over. The fact that who is and isn't cheered remains constant during PPVs on the road proves it. Speaking of, watch Lockdown last year, see the crowd turn electric over Roxxi.

And since the majority of these schmucks arent TNA fans, you cant tell who is over since they could really care less and are there to see wrestling and not necessarily TNA.

Of course they take chances, but they need guarantees.

A GUARANTEE negates a CHANCE, what the fuck.

The show has financial backing of its own

Not a guarantee of anything other than they dont have to invest money thus no chance is taken other than giving it time to air.

or has star power

Also not a guarantee. There have been tons of shows with "stars" that flop. See TNA Impact...

or is something new/seldom done by anybody else

Yet another thing that is NOT a guarantee. You really dont know fuck all about TV do you?

The idea of ROH going national means very little financial backing, no star power that anybody in the network board would care about or even know of, going against a billion dollar company that has already killed an equally large company so what the hell is a dinky little company going to do against them, and given the decline in wrestling's popularity recently a new one hour drama is a much better bet in terms of ratings and profit.

Yes, using this logic, TNA, when it had (and still at times has) shit for production and was a dinky little company, it shouldnt have even tried.

Ack, misused words. What I meant was WWE killed WCW, which means see above.

And WWF killed off every territory before WCW came along, and guess what happened anyway, WCW kicked WWFs ass in the ratings.

I don't know the cast and crew of the particular show, no, but I do know
about the current fad of one hour dramas. I was talking about the show in THAT regard, not the individual selling points of the particular show.

Law and Order (1990)
ER (1994)
CSI (2001)

So 18 years, 14 years and 8 years are "fads"?

Do you really think a network board, most or all of the members of which probably don't watch wrestling, really care about that? "Well... our matches are longer!" Yeah, not good enough. The selling points I listed above need to be fulfilled before any network will be willing to take a shot with ROH.

No I dont, because simply being DIFFERENT doesnt make you good, which is what you contend.

Ok, you know what? Fine. I, Roxxi Laveaux Fanboy, hereby submit to you all that Kaedon is 100% right when he says that there are men out there who watched Sex and the City.

:clap:

I never watched Baywatch, and though I can't name names

You dont know what the fuck you are talking about? Why I believe we agree again. :clap:

TV as in actual programming, not beer commercials. Look at the women in the popular shows today. None of them are Baywatch whores. They're always doctors, or CSI's, or sarcastic wives, or Sarah Connor, etc.

I can name two shows that blow away the ratings of the doctor shows, CSI, and the shitty Terminator show that has nothing but hot chicks in tight or short clothing. American Idol and Survivor. And even in those shows you named, there is still a good amount of skin showing, unless everyone wears sweats on the Terminator show.

Until you point out how Sex and the City is similar to ROH, yes, i'm ignoring it. This thread has gone off topic enough, don't make it worse, Mr. Impact Wrestling Forums Moderator.

Please quote where I said "Sex and the City and ROH are alike"

Is this where you grab some ratings sheet from March 26, 2007 and say "Ha! It increased in ratings from the previous thing!" I'm sure every so often the viewership DOES increase ten or twenty thousand, yes. But if you look at the AVERAGE RATINGS, no the Divas don't draw.

So, the DO increase the ratings? Ok then, thats all you had to say.

No, not really. Go find a picture of their using the ropes during the entrance. But i'll just pretend that that's what this picture depicts so I can respond to it anyway.

Angelina Love and Velvet Sky have the GIMMICK of being sluts, and even with that, they dress more modestly than the Divas. Not only that, but they're still VERY talented (well, Angelina moreso, which is why Velvet is a seldom-used jobber), and they get a lot of heat for their actions. I don't see people yelling "YEEAAH, KICK ODB'S ASS, SHE'S WEARING TOO MUCH!!" They get a heel reaction, while Roxxi went out there during her heel career looking as unattractive as Nikki is capable, and yet she got so over they had to turn her face. They had no reason to cheer Nikki, she was being an ass to all the faces; but still, the crowds pretty much demanded a face turn. Goes to show you that wearing nothing does not draw anymore.

So its different that they dress like whores because its their gimmick?

I've seen more revealing cheerleader outfits in high school. Yes, "cheerleader ooohhh fap fap." Someone that desperate is going to jack off to any woman wearing anything. She's clearly dressed to compete, not to show off her rack. And if you watched her rip her opponents apart in the ring, you sure as hell would not claim that she's sexualized.

and ive seen less revealing. The point is, that one is FAR FROM "conservative".

Wow, when did THIS happen on iMPACT!?

If you're going to point out things that they do off camera, you should go for the meatier stuff and post the cover of Shelly's fetish porn video. What they do off screen has no bearing on what they do in the ring.

When they do it for the company, or with the name of the show on their body, uh yeah it does. But of course it doesnt matter to you because it proves your bullshit theory WRONG.

When a Knockout poses for playboy or makes a sex video, it is never mentioned in any way, shape, or form on iMPACT!. The Knockouts are all about kicking ass.

And dressing like whores....

What they do off the air has absolutely no effect on the show. It's never brought up, never mentioned, ever. But the Divas bring it up to such a degree that storylines are based on it. The Knockouts draw and the Divas don't. Not a coincidence.

If they do it for a wrestling mag or for the TNA website or WITH THE SHOW LOGO, yes it does.

No, but if you take a third of the ocean and there's no fish in it, any statistician would conclude with a high degree of certainty that there are no fish in the ocean. Again, I mentioned the "one third" part later. Respond to my whole arguments, not segmented portions that can't hold water without the explanations that follow almost immediately.

You're assuming every wrestling fan watches either the WWE or TNA, which is just plainly not true.

You'll have to post a clip of the Low Down, because as I understand it the Low Down is D'lo's frog splash. And if that's it, then yes, I do deny it. And yes, some moves may look similar to other moves. But if you actually looked at two similar-appearing moves, you'd know that they're actually totally different. Are you arguing that Nikki didn't innovate anything because it looks somewhat similar to a spinebuster that Lance Cade has been using for a year?

Im saying Nikki didnt innovate it because D-Lo has been using a move almost exactly like it for years. Its called the Sky High, my mistake, and is also called the Rayden Bomb over in Japan.

As I explained by turning it around earlier and asking if Triple H has ever filled an arena ONLY by the promise of HIM AND ONLY HIM IN THE ARENA, NO OTHER MATCHES, no, i'm not saying that. No single match is responsible for any total viewership - the promise of that brand of professional wrestling is what does the job. But as you'd see if you looked at the ratings, the Knockouts are ALWAYS the highest rated segment, or right up next to it. They do not lose viewers, simple as that.

Youre avoiding the point. I said the people you are talking about are a small portion of a SMALL section.

So if you take a sample group of one third of the total focus group, you'd be totally idiotic to assume that their opinions are similar to the total? Wow, you just spit in the face of every statistician in the world, but hey, I guess you know better. Kaedon, take a stats class.

Im smart enough to know that taking a sample isnt as good as knowing the whole. Thats why when COUNTLESS polls are taken for COUNTLESS things, and only a small portion is taken, its often proven to be wrong because of a lot of different factors.

Yes, they get a few little shoutouts, that's why TNA isn't dead. But a simple mention is hardly the same level of advertising that WWE puts out. As for TNA commercials during a WWE brand, i've yet to see one.

If by shout out you mean TALKING TO A WRESTLER.

 

[Tsaalyo Phoenix]

Kaedon, now you're repeating arguments and flat out ignoring what I say.

I provide examples showing that every single Knockout is out there in either realistic and appropriate athletic attire or some kind of gimmick thing, like Kong's outfit or Roxxi's old voodoo outfit, and you simply ignore it and instead say that they dress like whores.

I point out the increasing number of signs and the fact that the out-of-IZ PPVs have crowds that coincide with the cheers of the IZ, and you ignore it and instead say that people in the IZ aren't TNA fans.

I saw that WWE put WCW out of business, and you say that WCW killed WWE in the ratings - true for a brief point in time, but again, ignoring the truth of what I said.

I point out time and time again that the Knockouts draw the highest rated portion of any given iMPACT!, and you say that women don't draw.

I say that the Divas do not draw, then I respond to your saying "NEVER?", and now you try to make it seem like I say they draw when both myself and the ratings for any typical Divas matchup says they don't.

I say that what the Knockouts do off screen is never ever mentioned in any capacity on air, proof of which being right there on screen, and you say "yes it is."

I point out that the Knockouts draw the highest, and you say that the Knockouts draw a small portion of a small portion.

You call a third of the total focus group too small a portion to draw information of the whole from, even though any statistician would say otherwise. Want proof of that? Look at how Nielsen ratings work! They gather information from a hell of a smaller portion of the population than one third.

I, several other people, and the HISTORY BOOKS say that Nikki innovated the Guillotine Drop, and you say that she didn't because D-Lo Brown can do a high angle spinning spinebuster. Do you realize how stupid you sound? That's like saying that Kurt Angle didn't innovate the Olympic Slam because Eddie Guerrero did the Three Amigos. THEY ARE DIFFERENT MOVES.

You constantly compare ROH to shows like Sex and the City, and now you backpedal when called on it.

I make a valid point, and you choose to ignore it in favor of nitpicking the wording.

Kaedon, i'm done with your ignoring what I say, ignoring facts, and going off on tangeants that have nothing to do with anything and then claiming i've been proven wrong when I grow sick of humoring you with them. This debate lost all point and purpose when you refused to accept that Nikki innovated a move despite everyone telling you otherwise. This argument, because i'm not going to lower the significance of debates by calling this one, is over.