TheKGBIsAfterYou, on Jan 6 2010, 04:37 PM, said:
TNA vs WWE
#26
Posted 06 January 2010 - 12:14 PM
#27
Posted 06 January 2010 - 12:28 PM
#28
Posted 06 January 2010 - 03:01 PM
#29
Posted 06 January 2010 - 04:39 PM
If WWE brought all those guys in and went 3 hours, and TNA only went 2 and brought in Bret, WWE still would have been more watched.
But it wouldn't make much sense for Bret to go to TNA. I was kinda shocked when I seen Niedhart there.
#30
Posted 06 January 2010 - 04:46 PM
Tha fact that neither the Guns, BMI where included in the show this week makes me iffy considering Hogans statement.
#31
Posted 06 January 2010 - 04:51 PM
Blooma, on Jan 6 2010, 04:01 PM, said:
But then again, this is the sheets we're talking about here. Generally full of errors. I saw NCIS (Which runs before RAW) got a 2.9 and had about 4.6 million viewers, so I was optimistically went with a 4, but knew I was wrong.
Edit: They're saying this is the most watched RAW since the night after Summerslam last year, yet the rating is the exact same as last week. Odd.
#32
Posted 07 January 2010 - 01:15 AM
#33
Posted 07 January 2010 - 04:50 AM
#34
Posted 07 January 2010 - 12:49 PM
It's like Soulja Boy vs Canibus. One is CLEARLY more popular and will outsell no matter what. But the other is clearly better.
#35
Posted 07 January 2010 - 01:07 PM
I'm going to try and find both episodes on the net and watch them individually.
#36
Posted 07 January 2010 - 01:35 PM
TheKGBIsAfterYou, on Jan 7 2010, 01:07 PM, said:
I'm going to try and find both episodes on the net and watch them individually.
Booo!!!
Anyways, I haven't watched TNA since they first came on TV, back when they were on in like the afternoon. But baised on what they're trying to do it seems a lot like WCW. I mean, they bring in a bunch of old(er) WWE guys, most of which I personally don't care about, the only person who would make me want to watch TNA is Flair. But when it comes to Flair on TNA, or Bret on WWE, I'm going with Bret. Bret basically hasn't been around for 10 years, Flair "retired" last year. Plus from a personal standpoint I've always liked Bret way more than Flair. That being said, I didn't watch either of them so I can't comment on which was better, I just hate the way TNA is becoming like WCW.
#37
Posted 07 January 2010 - 02:02 PM
#38
Posted 07 January 2010 - 07:45 PM
I will admit that after thinking about it TNA did pretty well despite. They made history with the "Most Watched Hour of TNA TV" and "Most watched 15 min Segment". I think the WWE also did fine too but the rating seems to indicate that despite Bret Hart Guest Hosting the rating stayed around the same. I think if TNA Continues this type of thing they could become a threat to the WWE and when that happens the WWE will have to take notice.
The phrase "TNA Owned the WWE" is far from the truth Ratings wise, but is true depending on each of the viewers opinion and what they look for in a Wrestling Show.
#39
Posted 07 January 2010 - 08:02 PM
When iMPACT! started airing in Australia, they got a really good rating the first week, everyone got really excited, and then the second week nobody watched it. Monday's rating means nothing; next Thursday's will tell the real story.
#40
Posted 08 January 2010 - 06:45 PM
MC Coemgen, on Jan 7 2010, 07:35 PM, said:
But look at it this way; It may be that RAW has the same ratings as last week, but it also means that 2.2 Million other people watched wrestling. Ratings are too vague to find out who watches what, but it's a rise in the amount of people watching wrestling on a Monday. It's a great day for Wrestling, whether you love RAW or A.J. Styles.
#41
Posted 08 January 2010 - 08:05 PM
#42
Posted 09 January 2010 - 04:36 AM
#43
Posted 09 January 2010 - 10:20 AM
Quote
Shh.....the smarks will hear you
#44
Posted 09 January 2010 - 10:38 AM
#45
Posted 09 January 2010 - 10:52 AM
@KGB: **** the smarks, Hargy & Hogan = money, whether the smarks think they can wrestle or even have a place in the industry is meaningless as long as the marks (who are larger in number to the smarks by ten-fold) continue to buy into them. love or hate them, Hogan is the biggest draw of any era period (besides maybe Austin) and Hardy is the biggest draw in modern day wrestling besides Cena. In fact he's probably more of draw than Cena considering that he basically pushes himself and doesn't have to be force fed to the marks, he's just naturally loved by the mainstream audience even though he's everything they should disslike because of his image (drugs, tattoos, multi coloured hair, etc).
#46
Posted 09 January 2010 - 11:49 AM
#47
Posted 09 January 2010 - 01:53 PM
Blooma, on Jan 9 2010, 04:52 PM, said:
@KGB: **** the smarks, Hargy & Hogan = money, whether the smarks think they can wrestle or even have a place in the industry is meaningless as long as the marks (who are larger in number to the smarks by ten-fold) continue to buy into them. love or hate them, Hogan is the biggest draw of any era period (besides maybe Austin) and Hargy is the biggest draw in modern day wrestling besides Cena. In fact he's probably more of draw than Cena considering that he basically pushes himself and doesn't have to be force fed to the marks, he's just naturally loved by the mainstream audience even though he's everything they should disslike because of his image (drugs, tattoos, multi coloured hair, etc).
#48
Posted 09 January 2010 - 03:34 PM
Blooma, on Jan 9 2010, 01:22 PM, said:
No You Couldn't, Unless You Had Just A Mat And No Corner's Or Ropes
I'd Like To See The 6 Sided Ring Because It Make's TNA Stand Out From All The Other's (Excluding The Mexican Promotion's)...I Don't Think I'd Mind If They Went Back To A 4 Sided Ring Though...It Would Just Take Some Getting Used To
#49
Posted 09 January 2010 - 03:59 PM
@Chik: We all know I meant Hardy, typo's happen to all of us... I am missing the n00b though. ;(
@ Sickness: It was a sarcastic example, I don't expect anyone to actually use a circular ring, my point was the ring is nothing more than a tool. As long as the action is good you don't even need a ring at times. Point proven by the fact that there has been boiler room matches, parking lot brawl matches, matches have have stayed in the ring less than a few minutes, and not to forget the fact that hardcore matches back in the day took place everywhere.
#50
Posted 09 January 2010 - 04:05 PM
Quote
They need to bring that shit back. I wanna see Miz get beat down in a Senior Citizens Home.