Join The Community
TNM Discord
@tnm7sim
tnm7sim
TNM 3:16 Forums
FORUM HOME > Wrestling > TNA
TNA may just get me back yet!
| The Empress | Posted on 09/22/07 at 00:13:16 From Gerweck: TNA has interest in CMLL's Sarah Stock (The Dark Angel). Stock is currently living in Mexico City.WOOT! Sarah Stock is one of the top North American females in professional wrestling! I would definitely watch TNA if they signed her! |
| Mr. Ken Kennedy | Posted on 09/22/07 at 02:17:28On 09/22/07 at 00:13:16, The Empress wrote:From Gerweck:I saw her wrestle Nattie Neidhart live! |
| C-R-P-L-S | Posted on 09/22/07 at 05:06:27 Does TNA even have women's wrestling matches ever? |
| The Empress | Posted on 09/22/07 at 05:49:32On 09/22/07 at 02:17:28, Mr. Ken Kennedy wrote:I saw her wrestle Nattie Neidhart live!Lucky! I imagine that was a pretty good match. And yes, TNA is starting up its women's division with the coming of the second hour of Impact. |
| Unright | Posted on 09/22/07 at 14:31:57On 09/22/07 at 00:13:16, The Empress wrote:WOOT! Sarah Stock is one of the top North American females in professional wrestling! I would definitely watch TNA if they signed her!Uh.. She's not replacing Russo, y'know. |
| Mr. Ken Kennedy | Posted on 09/22/07 at 15:46:14On 09/22/07 at 14:31:57, Unright wrote:Russo's booking is awful, but still I'd take Russo's booking over Jarrett and Mantel's. THAT IS SAD! :'( |
| Unright | Posted on 09/22/07 at 19:41:56 No, I'd take Mantell and/or Jarrett over Russo. The Death of WCW is still fresh in my mind. |
| Mr. Ken Kennedy | Posted on 09/22/07 at 21:23:04On 09/22/07 at 19:41:56, Unright wrote:No, I'd take Mantell and/or Jarrett over Russo.I hate to break the news: But WCW was in big trouble long before Russo hit the scene. WCW was in trouble when guys like Jericho left to go to WWE. |
| JustinCredible | Posted on 09/22/07 at 21:25:05And yes, TNA is starting up its women's division with the coming of the second hour of Impact.Actually they are crowning a women's champion at the next ppv in a 10 woman guantlet match, like the way the crowned Ken Shamrock NWA Champion at the very first TNA show. |
| The Empress | Posted on 09/22/07 at 21:47:02On 09/22/07 at 19:41:56, Unright wrote:No, I'd take Mantell and/or Jarrett over Russo.QFT. Furthermore, TNA was actually pretty good before Vince Russo took over the booking. I enjoyed every single TNA pay-per-view until (IIRC) the second one after Russo took over, and they have all pretty much sucked since then. I mean it was a noticable change in booking, moreso than I ever thought possible. I know Sarah Stock isn't replacing him, but I'd love to see her wrestling on national television, so I'll put up with his ridiculous booking to watch her. That is, unless they turn her into another plastic bimbo and put her in nothing but catfights. We'll see if they do a respectable job soon enough. |
| Jake | Posted on 09/22/07 at 22:00:37 I suspect that TNA will crown a Women's Champ then: 1.) Bring in non-TNA women to be jobbed out for 2 weeks. 2.) Forget they crowned a Women's Champion 3 weeks later. |
| 91 | Posted on 09/22/07 at 23:10:54On 09/22/07 at 21:23:04, Mr. Ken Kennedy wrote:Russo was still the final few nails in the coffin. While WCW was in trouble before he arrived (and before Jericho left by the way), the quality of the shows didn't dip quite as dramatically as they did until he took over the book. |
| C-R-P-L-S | Posted on 09/22/07 at 23:17:45 WCW died because of financial issues and losing support of AOL Time Warner since it wasn't Turner anymore. Russo booking alone would've never killed them because if they were still in a good financial position, had the support of the parent company, they probably would've ditched him. |
| 91 | Posted on 09/22/07 at 23:51:59 Why do you think they were in such a bad financial spot in the first place? This was something Russo could have helped turn around, instead he merely helped turned it round 360 and spiralled it even further downwards. |
| The Empress | Posted on 09/23/07 at 05:15:46 The first thing that really hurt WCW was Turner getting ousted from any real power, since AOL Time Warner was against professional wrestling. Strike two was when, during his stint with creative, Kevin Nash booked himself to end Goldberg's streak followed by the "Finger Poke of Doom". That was the "jump the shark" moment by far. Strike three was, beyond a doubt, Vince Russo, who is one of the worst creative talents in all of professional wrestling. |
| 91 | Posted on 09/23/07 at 10:27:04 The first thing that really hurt WCW was Turner getting ousted from any real power, since AOL Time Warner was against professional wrestling. I'm sure AOL wouldn't have felt like that if WCW was still rolling in the profits it had been for the first year or so of the NWO angle. Yes they were against having WCW, but that was largely because they were haemorrhaging money at a rate of knots. Strike two was when, during his stint with creative, Kevin Nash booked himself to end Goldberg's streak followed by the "Finger Poke of Doom". That was the "jump the shark" moment by far. Agreed. Starrcade 97 was when you realised that the WWF were about to overtake them, Starrcade 98 and the fingerpoke stuff was when you realised they'd never re-pass them. Strike three was, beyond a doubt, Vince Russo, who is one of the worst creative talents in all of professional wrestling. And also a man who'll take credit for stuff that had nothing to do with him. He once tried to take credit for the Diesel character, even though he debuted before Russo was even doing the magazine. The guy is an idiot. |
| psz | Posted on 09/23/07 at 15:05:32 Russo is "creative". However, just being "creative" does NOT mean you're GOOD at it. Hence why in the WWF he had to be reigned in by other people, have his "creativity" cut and chopped by others, and pasted together into something good. Unfortunately, this ruined it for future WWF bookers who, like Russo, have their creativity cut and pasted into "something good", whether or not it IS good (Re: WWECW) |
| Mr. Ken Kennedy | Posted on 09/23/07 at 19:27:18On 09/23/07 at 15:05:32, psz wrote:Russo is "creative". However, just being "creative" does NOT mean you're GOOD at it.The thing is a lot of Russo's storylines could have worked if they actually did them right. The Old school vs. The New School could have worked if the writers (including Russo), went about it in the right way. The main problem with Russo was that he liked to push younger talent, and that's fine. But he liked to push the WRONG younger guys. Guys like Evan Karagias, and please don't remind me of Russo himself as champion, Jeff Jarrett, David Arquette, and last but certainly not least, Oklahoma. While I do admit that pushing Greg Helms (at the time Shane Helms) and Jamie Noble were good choices, there were a lot more bad choices than good ones. |
| JustinCredible | Posted on 09/23/07 at 20:09:17 Wrestling Observer: TNA ended up not bringing in women's wrestler Sarah Stock (Dark Angel) of CMLL in Mexico. They were just looking for five bodies to fill spots in the Knockouts Gauntlet match as opposed to bringing in girls to create new stars. Also, Stock lives in Mexico City and TNA felt there was no point in going through all the trouble to bring her to the U.S. for what probably was going to be a one time deal. |
| The Empress | Posted on 09/23/07 at 21:30:46 And that's the end of that. I knew I shouldn't have given my hopes up. TNA do something right? LOL, joke's on me, ya? |
| C-R-P-L-S | Posted on 09/24/07 at 00:27:15 The only joke is that you think bringing in or not Sarah Stock actually counts as right/wrong for TNA. If anything, they're right about the reasoning for ultimately not bringing her in. |
| The Empress | Posted on 09/24/07 at 01:48:27 So not bringing in a good wrestler is a good decision? Huh? They should have been trying to bring her in full-time to begin with. As it stands, TNA's women's division is looking to be almost as much of a joke as WWE's. |
| Mr. Ken Kennedy | Posted on 09/24/07 at 01:58:14On 09/24/07 at 01:48:27, The Empress wrote:So not bringing in a good wrestler is a good decision? Huh?Yeah, but does TNA actually have a "women's division" aren't most of them just ring girls and glorified valets? |
| C-R-P-L-S | Posted on 09/24/07 at 02:52:53On 09/24/07 at 01:48:27, The Empress wrote:So not bringing in a good wrestler is a good decision? Huh?Oh jesus. Who cares if she's good? The point is she does live in Mexico City, has regular work and they don't need her when the women's division isn't going to be anymore "serious" than the Divas. It's just going to be another part of TV wrestling that you guys overreact about. Of course it's going to be a joke and all you'd do is bitch and moan when she wasn't champ, jobbed to Gail Kim or whoever else will be involved. |
| Rick Garrard | Posted on 09/24/07 at 03:27:20 until one of the TNA women blades in a 6 sides of steel match, they will never be as hardcore as the All Japan Women used to be. |
| The TNM Members Champ | Posted on 09/24/07 at 07:15:21On 09/24/07 at 01:48:27, The Empress wrote:So not bringing in a good wrestler is a good decision? Huh?The difference is, the WWE could care less about their women's division because they realize no one pays to see the women's division. With you, you're acting as if the difference between TNA becoming a juggernaut in professional wrestling is having a decent women's division. I know you're biased since you like women's wrestling and I supposed I am too in that it just doesn't interest me as a professional wrestling fan. I think TNA has other issues other than the women's division to fix before they can get any kind of fan following. Besides, if you want women's wrestling, isn't Shimmer supposed to be a decent promotion for that? |
| Unright | Posted on 09/24/07 at 12:01:55On 09/24/07 at 07:15:21, The TNM Members Champ wrote:I think TNA has other issues other than the women's division to fix before they can get any kind of fan following.Yup. That's why I mentioned that Stock wasn't replacing Russo, so it's not news, it's just the same ol' shit. |
| psz | Posted on 09/24/07 at 14:54:44 Just some personal oppionions here... I have a feeling I'm going to be as interested in TNA's Women's Division as I am about the Divas or GLOW for that matter... That is, not. It just doesn't interest me. So I think it would be quite dumb for TNA to hire a one-off legit woman wrestler only to have her job to someone else, regardless of who or how good they are (Great Sasuke in WWF, anyone?) Side note, my favorite Woman In Wrestling momemt would be.... Bill Alfonso vs Beullah McGillacutty in ECW. This was SUPPOSED to be a joke match, according to the fans and Styles. I think either Rick or Rob or TurdBurgler ended up referring to it as "A spot filled blood bath". It was BRUTAL. Now, I don't want all women's matches to be like that... Hell, I don't want all MEN'S matches to be like that... But once in a while, you need someone pouring out a pint of blood (in Fonzy's case, beer) while doing hurricanranas. |
| C-R-P-L-S | Posted on 09/24/07 at 20:29:28 Speaking of LOL: TNA's Mobile Service has confirmed the final five participants in the Knockouts Gauntlet at the Bound for Glory PPV: ODB, Angel Williams, Talia Madison, Shelly Martinez and Amazing Kong. Already confirmed for the match were: Christy Hemme, Gail Kim, Ms. Brooks, Jackie Moore and Roxxy Laveaux. |
| Mr. Ken Kennedy | Posted on 09/24/07 at 20:33:34 Amazing Kong is actually a pretty good worker. Not attractive by no means, but a pretty decent talent. |
| C-R-P-L-S | Posted on 09/24/07 at 20:46:45 lol no. |
| The TNM Members Champ | Posted on 09/24/07 at 21:34:06 All the silicone in that women's match is going to make Anubis have a nervous breakdown. But at least it means Shelly and her enormous boobs are making an appearance. |
| The Empress | Posted on 09/24/07 at 22:18:27On 09/24/07 at 21:34:06, The TNM Members Champ wrote:All the silicone in that women's match is going to make Anubis have a nervous breakdown.You're probably right about that. |
| 91 | Posted on 09/24/07 at 23:38:18On 09/24/07 at 14:54:44, psz wrote:I'll correct you on the Great Sasuke matter. First off, he never actually jobbed to anyone, I think he even only had as little as three matches (two with Taka Michinoku and one with Brian Christopher). Further more, he was specifically hired to be the flag bearer of the light heavyweight division rather than be a job guy for someone else - that was actually Takas role initially. Anyway, Sasuke said some things he really shouldn't have said and consequently got the chop. Needing someone to take his spot, they figured since Taka had been so impressive (and I think to some extent they'd been MORE impressed with his work than Sasukes), they offered him a contract instead. So, there you go. |
| psz | Posted on 09/24/07 at 23:58:57 I refered to him as a jobber to Taka due to the Tourny. In the end, the casual WWF fans only knew him as That Masked Guy That Taka Beat. It may not have been the intention, but that was the overall outcome in the end. Now.... Had any of those casual fans watched ECW in the month or so leading up to the Light Heavyweight tourny, they'd have seen Sasuke having some excellent matches with Taka and others. |
| 91 | Posted on 09/25/07 at 00:14:53On 09/24/07 at 23:58:57, psz wrote:I refered to him as a jobber to Taka due to the Tourny. In the end, the casual WWF fans only knew him as That Masked Guy That Taka Beat. It may not have been the intention, but that was the overall outcome in the end.I just said neither Taka nor anyone else actually beat him, he was undefeated. |
| The Empress | Posted on 09/25/07 at 00:43:39 91 is correct. I checked the records, and there is no mention of Taka Michinoku defeating The Great Sasuke in the WWF. The tournament final was Taka Michinoku over Brian Christopher. |
| psz | Posted on 09/25/07 at 05:48:16 You are correct, he wasn't even IN the tourny. He beat Taka twice (once at In Your House) prior to the tourny AND in ECW. He was "booted out" before even being part of the tourny. (Michinoku Pro talent was also dropped, other than Taka) The point still stands, though, that a "major name" was brought in for what ended up being nothing (his fault nonwithstanding) I can't see TNA wasting the money to do similar, intentionally or otherwise. |
| The Empress | Posted on 09/25/07 at 08:33:47On 09/25/07 at 05:48:16, psz wrote:I can't see TNA wasting the money to do similar, intentionally or otherwise.O RLY? TNA wastes money all the time. I mean, look at some of the names they've brought in that are worthless: Andrew Martin, Tyson Tomko, Matt Morgan? Or the biggest waste of money of all, a man who actually has probably lost the company money, Vince Russo. Their big mistake was trying to copycat WWE instead of sticking with their original product. |
| psz | Posted on 09/25/07 at 14:39:01 All of those people stayed around, though. They weren't one-offs or two-offs. TNA's mentality is "Let's bring in all the WWE people we can to draw". It's a concept that works on paper, and somewhat in reality (somewhat). To say "OK, we're going to pay to have someone flown in from another country just to NOT be the new champ in the new division, and then say "Toodles, we're done with you" would be silly. I'm not saying it wouldn't be done, just that it would be silly :-> |
| C-R-P-L-S | Posted on 09/25/07 at 19:17:18 Well, Test didn't stay around very long. :) And Tomko is still awesome. |
| 91 | Posted on 09/25/07 at 21:35:02On 09/25/07 at 08:33:47, The Empress wrote:In fairness, Tomko has been OK and has fit in fine (bar the win over Samoa Joe which at best was a tad bizarre). The other two I could care less about - although Crpls noted Test didn't stay around long, I suppose they intended to waste money on him. |
| The Empress | Posted on 09/25/07 at 22:12:02 Point is that none of them draw, ergo they are a waste of money based on what else has been said in this thread. |
| C-R-P-L-S | Posted on 09/25/07 at 22:55:24 Who IS a draw in TNA, though? The whole promotion is a waste of money, but Panda has money to burn. |
| The Empress | Posted on 09/26/07 at 04:14:41On 09/25/07 at 22:55:24, C-R-P-L-S wrote:Who IS a draw in TNA, though? The whole promotion is a waste of money, but Panda has money to burn.I imagine Samoa Joe, Kurt Angle, Sting, and AJ Styles all have decent drawing power. |
| rebelins | Posted on 09/26/07 at 05:42:17 I don't think Samoa Joe and AJ Styles would draw terribly well if they went outside or Orlando and promoted shows. Sure they'd sell out ROH and PWG shows but most casual fans don't care about either of them. Sting never drew well on top and only did well when backed by strong opponents. Angle's probably the biggest draw but even he's not great in that department. |
| 91 | Posted on 09/27/07 at 22:55:14On 09/26/07 at 04:14:41, The Empress wrote:So you're saying that those four are worth the money and all the others come under your self-titled "none of them draw, ergo they are a waste of money" description? Besides, I wouldn't even get fully behind those four as draws - Angle is the biggest of the lot and he's done next to jot for ratings and buyrates. As far as Tomko not drawing, I'm not coming to his defense as a super-duper star by any means, but his role isn't to draw, his role is to help Christian get over. |
| AllPowerfulGARTH | Posted on 09/28/07 at 00:32:24 I'd endeavor to say that Christian Cage draws better than Samoa Joe and much better than A.J. Styles. |
| The Empress | Posted on 09/28/07 at 01:09:49On 09/28/07 at 00:32:24, AllPowerfulGARTH wrote:I'd endeavor to say that Christian Cage draws better than Samoa Joe and much better than A.J. Styles.Maybe maybe a little more than AJ Styles, but not Samoa Joe. |
| C-R-P-L-S | Posted on 09/28/07 at 03:11:58 The only time Samoa Joe is ever a draw is if he goes to an even more podunk than normal Indy and they draw 50 instead of 25 because they don't get to see him regularly. The same can be said for any indy guys for the most part. Styles has never been a draw and won't ever be TNA. There are no draws in TNA. Neither Angle or Sting have done anything significant for TNA. |
| psz | Posted on 09/28/07 at 05:58:35 Let's put it this way, take anyone from the TNA roster (other than the WWE/WCW/ECW Alumni) and put them on a WWE show, give them a win, and how many will get major pops? Joe *MIGHT* get a decent pop, depending on the location. Styles *MIGHT* get an OK pop, again, depending on location. Other than Sting, Dudleyz, Angle, and Cage, I doubt anyone else would get much of a reaction. Hell, unless they're involved directly in a DX angle, I doubt the VKM would even be remembered by most WWE fans at this point. Now, take any WWE guy and put them on TNA... What's the reaction? Even Test and Tomko got a decent crowd response (better than 90% of thier WWE responses). |
| AllPowerfulGARTH | Posted on 09/28/07 at 15:14:51On 09/28/07 at 01:09:49, The Empress wrote:Christian Cage has more name recognition and more charisma. Samoa Joe may be a more talented in-ring performer, but that doesn't have as much weight with the casual fan -- and even if TNA may be the more WORKRATE~-friendly of the two biggest wrestling promotions in the U.S., I have to believe the majority of its fans are still casual fans, just like with WWE. psz has a very good point on WWE drawing power vs. TNA drawing power. |
| psz | Posted on 09/28/07 at 19:08:43 I would like to point out, though, that pushed properlly (ROH/TNA style) in the WWE, I think Joe would be quite over in WWE as well. Just not as well as Cena or HHH or Batista. |
| 91 | Posted on 09/28/07 at 19:09:09On 09/28/07 at 05:58:35, psz wrote:Let's put it this way, take anyone from the TNA roster (other than the WWE/WCW/ECW Alumni) and put them on a WWE show, give them a win, and how many will get major pops?This is all correct, other than you could possibly add the Steiners to the list. |
| Cpl. Nathan Hornburg, RIP | Posted on 09/28/07 at 19:51:16 That's why I like ROH better than TNA. More ***** matches, and the majority of the fans cheer based on the match quality (kind of like Puro) |
| The Empress | Posted on 09/28/07 at 21:21:24 Name Recognition =/= Popularity or Overness VKM have plenty more name recognition than Styles or Joe, but Styles and Joe still get better crowd reactions easily. |
| Unright | Posted on 09/28/07 at 22:09:23On 09/28/07 at 21:21:24, The Empress wrote:Name Recognition =/= Popularity or OvernessWait.. I'm confused.. Could you take a moment to give concrete definitions to each of those terms (Name Recognition, Popularity, & Overness)? |
| The Empress | Posted on 09/28/07 at 23:34:21On 09/28/07 at 22:09:23, Unright wrote:Wait.. I'm confused.. Could you take a moment to give concrete definitions to each of those terms (Name Recognition, Popularity, & Overness)?Name Recognition is how well-known people are just by name (no one would argue that Hulk Hogan and the Rock have the most name recognition in professional wrestling I would hope) Popularity and Overness are very closely related, with Popularity being how much people want to see a person and Overness being how well a person would like seeing them (two very slightly different things, granted) You could be a complete unknown but still be over based on how you come across when they do see you. Name recognition doesn't necessarily mean people want to see you, and you can be wildly popular with those who do know you without necessarily being widely known. John Cena has fairly good name recognition, 50/50 popularity, and good overness with the WWE crowd. Rob Van Dam, on the other hand, is a guy who is wildly popular and over, but is lacking in name recognition. A lot of the good indy workers fall into Rob Van Dam's category, while WWE workers tend to have more name recognition than popularity or overness. To be a draw, you need a combination of name recognition and popularity, which is why I think Cena is only a moderate draw at best since his popularity is 50/50. Those without name recognition may not draw quite as well in WWE, but those that are over can draw very well outside WWE. I guess the bottom line is that name recognition goes further in WWE while overness goes further outside WWE, and popularity is important all around. |
| AllPowerfulGARTH | Posted on 09/28/07 at 23:44:01On 09/28/07 at 21:21:24, The Empress wrote:Name Recognition =/= Popularity or OvernessWait, wasn't the question in regards to drawing power? Don't tell me you don't think name recognition factors into drawing power. |
| 91 | Posted on 09/28/07 at 23:46:57On 09/28/07 at 23:34:21, The Empress wrote:Do you even know the definition of the word 'draw'? Draw means the ability to make people buy/watch/attend shows based on your being there, regardless of whether you're popular or not. Of those full-timing it, Cena is the biggest draw in the U.S. today and, along with The Undertaker, arguably the only real draw left. Triple H, Shawn Michaels and possibly Edge have shown themselves to have some capacity in the past too, but not nearly to the same extent as the other two. Nobody in TNA would be considered by themselves a 'draw'. I think you turned off the intelligence when you implied RVD was more over than Cena, thus demonstrating you don't even know what 'over' means either. Cena is also the most over guy in wrestling today by so many country miles that there are now several large countries between Cena and everyone else. |
| Unright | Posted on 09/29/07 at 00:42:46On 09/28/07 at 23:34:21, The Empress wrote:You could be a complete unknown but still be over based on how you come across when they do see you. Name recognition doesn't necessarily mean people want to see you, and you can be wildly popular with those who do know you without necessarily being widely known.First of all thanks for answering.. Second... Doesn't overness and popularity sorta depend on name recognition? I mean, how can someone be "over" or "popular" with Johnny Wrestlingwatcher if he has never heard of them? It seems to like it should be more of a tier idea. Say a promotion is having a show in my town. I look at the advertised card and I unconsciously place people in one of 4 categories. Level 0: No Name--(Bucky "The Brat" Simpson): Some guy I've never heard of. Not enticing me to go see the show. Level 1: Name Recognition--(Harry Smith): I've heard the name, but I've never seen him wrestle either live or on YouTube. Level 2: Overness--(Sylvain Grenier): I've heard of him and has seen him wrestler either live or on TV. Either I'm neutral towards him or I dislike him. Level 3: Popular--(The Undertaker): I know him well and I mark out for him. It doesn't matter if he's playing a face or a heel. Of course it's not a perfect system. Levels 0 and 1 are pretty set. But people can float between levels 2 and 3. bah.. It's just an idea. Feel free to modify if you feel fit. |
| The Empress | Posted on 09/29/07 at 01:02:41 Note: This was addressed to 91. Do I have to repeat myself as to explaining the terms? Also, seriously, John Cena is no more a draw than Triple H. Have ratings gone up with Cena on top? No. Has attendance gone up with Cena at top? No. WWE is pretty much in the same place it has been since like 2002. If Cena is such a huge draw, why haven't these numbers gone up? The simple answer is that the casuals really don't care. The whole lot of the current roster sits about equally with them. They could put the WWE Title on CM Punk and he'd draw just as well as Cena does. |
| The Empress | Posted on 09/29/07 at 01:12:59On 09/29/07 at 00:42:46, Unright wrote:First of all thanks for answering..I think the big problem is that there's no set definition for the terms. The way I use name recognition/popularity/overness is different than you, and you are different than the next person, etc. Too many ways to look at it. To answer your questions . . . A wrestler can be popular without much name recognition because popularity is more based on the percentage of people who love to see the guy in action just by hearing they're gonna be on a show. Truly, this isn't enough to be a draw per se. A wrestler can be over without being known because I base overness on how they are with the live crowd; these guys may not excite based on just showing up, but their performances get a great reaction. Again, this probably isn't enough to draw. Drawing power, that's based on a combination of name recognition and popularity. This is why I say John Cena is 50/50 as a draw. He may be widely known, but half the people who do know about him don't like him, while the other half think he's the second coming of Hulk Hogan. He's really popular with the young girls, but the older male demographics aren't very keen on him usually. CM Punk is an example of an unknown popular wrestler while Bryan Danielson is an unknown over wrestler. Rob Van Dam would be only somewhat known but wildly popular and over. Cena is widely known but only moderately popular and over. Funny thing is, in WWE today, I would bet that damn near anyone could draw just as well as the next. If they put the belt on the Great Khali for the next two years, it probably wouldn't hurt WWE despite the IWC basically turning on them completely, and it's because the money does it all. WWE is popular because of the hype more than the product, that's why they're not getting the numbers of the late 90s now; they really don't have a mega-draw anymore. Cena will never draw as well as guys like Austin, Hogan, or the Rock. Never gonna happen. Neither will Triple H. Hell, Ric Flair is one of the best of all time, but he was never anywhere nearing the drawing power of Hogan. It's all about the hype. Once you get to WWE's size, without competition, the money is the only thing that matters. They have no need to create another mega-draw at this point because there is not and will probably never be competition to warrant it. |
| Unright | Posted on 09/29/07 at 04:52:48 I cut & re-arranged your post a little to conserve a little space and cut down on redundancies in my answer. On 09/29/07 at 01:12:59, The Empress wrote:I think the big problem is that there's no set definition for the terms. The way I use name recognition/popularity/overness is different than you, and you are different than the next person, etc. Too many ways to look at it.Yeah, I figured that.. It didn't sound like we were on the same page as far as definitions go. And it's probably tru for others. A wrestler can be popular without much name recognition because popularity is more based on the percentage of people who love to see the guy in action just by hearing they're gonna be on a show. Truly, this isn't enough to be a draw per se.I think this is primarily where you and I differ, because it don't get that. Isn't name recognition just that? That they recognize the name? CM Punk is an example of an unknown popular wrestler while Bryan Danielson is an unknown over wrestler. Rob Van Dam would be only somewhat known but wildly popular and over. Cena is widely known but only moderately popular and over.Again, that seems to be an oxymoron. How can Punk be both unknown and popular? It sounds to me like you're more trying to make a distinction between casual & hardcore wrestling fans. "known" is based on mainstream visibility, whereas "popular" is based on what the IWC thinks. A wrestler can be over without being known because I base overness on how they are with the live crowd; these guys may not excite based on just showing up, but their performances get a great reaction. Again, this probably isn't enough to draw.That sounds more like charisma. Charisma leads to overness, not vice versa, though. Drawing power, that's based on a combination of name recognition and popularity. This is why I say John Cena is 50/50 as a draw. He may be widely known, but half the people who do know about him don't like him, while the other half think he's the second coming of Hulk Hogan. He's really popular with the young girls, but the older male demographics aren't very keen on him usually. Cena will never draw as well as guys like Austin, Hogan, or the Rock. Never gonna happen. Neither will Triple H. Hell, Ric Flair is one of the best of all time, but he was never anywhere nearing the drawing power of Hogan. It's all about the hype.But that's a rather subjective quantification and it varies by geographical location somewhat, so it's widely open to dispute and contrary positions. Measuring "drawing power" might be as simple as checking gate receipts to see how big the crowds were and how much money was made. Of course inflation would have to be adjusted for, which I don't really know how to do. "Overness" is a little trickier... The decibel level of crowd pops? I wonder if the WWE records that...? or they could go by merchandise sales or sign counting... Just ideas... |
| The Empress | Posted on 09/29/07 at 06:43:34 Measuring it would be an impossible task. I think the biggest thing is that, during the territorial days, the product and success thereof was entirely dependant on the workers. That's not the case these days, hence why I believe anyone could draw pretty equally in WWE. People say Cena is the biggest draw in the country, but as far as TV ratings and ticket sales go, he's no better than Triple H because the WWE hasn't had any real increase or decrease in the last half decade. The territories are gone and wrestling as a whole has more mainstream exposure, and the Monday night wars are over. That's why, at this point, I don't think individuals are really much of a draw anymore. |
| 91 | Posted on 09/29/07 at 11:37:21On 09/29/07 at 01:02:41, The Empress wrote:Note: This was addressed to 91.Please don't repeat seeing as you were wrong. Again. As for Cena being a bigger draw - DUH. Put it like this, if it'd been Cena who had had an injured quad for nine months, I'm willing to bet buyrates would have been lower than they were. Is he a massive draw? Nobody is now, but as far as being able to rely on someone to not completely sink things, it's just him and Undertaker. You can tell when someone is an out-and-out bad draw (IE Kevin Nash) when their being on top causes numbers to suddenly spike downwards. Triple H meanwhile was never a massive draw by himself, he was more the foil for the bigger names (Rock, Austin etc) which he did fine. Numbers won't sink with him on top, but Cena is a far more useful asset in terms of numbers. Also, please stop saying that RVD is wildly over and popular whereas Cena is not, you're making yourself look (more than usual) stupid. Do you even have the sound turned on when your wife ties you up and forces you to watch Raw (apparently). I know you love RVD and despise Cena (because that's what the internet has trained you to do) but give it a rest already, your know-nothing spiel is tiresome. |
| Cpl. Nathan Hornburg, RIP | Posted on 09/29/07 at 18:45:31 I can see one of the points that Empress is making though. Example: Everyone Knows the name "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan Not everybody knows the name: El Generico Who's match would you rather see? |
| 91 | Posted on 09/29/07 at 18:49:53On 09/29/07 at 18:45:31, Cpl. Nathan Hornburg, RIP wrote:I can see one of the points that Empress is making though.Now you're talking about being able to work, which is a completely different matter. That said, if you're asking the average "net fan" then they'd say El Generico, the vast majority of fans in the States have never seen him and so would say Duggan. |
| C-R-P-L-S | Posted on 09/29/07 at 19:36:02 Who is Duggan wrestling??? |
| rebelins | Posted on 09/29/07 at 19:57:49 If Duggan wrestled El Generico then the awesome scale would probably explode. |
| Zedja - TNMWA Champion | Posted on 09/29/07 at 20:33:21 To go back to the topic: TNA ended up not making a play towards women's wrestler Sarah Stock aka Dark Angel from CMLL. They were just looking for five bodies to fill in spots for Knockouts Gauntlet Match at Bound For Glory, as opposed to having an idea to find or create some new female star. Also, Stock lives in Mexico City, so there was no point in going through the trouble to getting her into the U.S. for what was probably going to be a one-time appearance. |
| C-R-P-L-S | Posted on 09/29/07 at 21:16:49 That was posted pages ago. :) |
| Zedja - TNMWA Champion | Posted on 09/30/07 at 08:01:47On 09/29/07 at 21:16:49, C-R-P-L-S wrote:That was posted pages ago. :)Oh I didn't see it through the crap posted in the thread |
| AllPowerfulGARTH | Posted on 09/30/07 at 22:37:45 Let me just say this regarding John Cena's popularity with casual fans: I spent my weekend at an amusement park in Cincinnati filled with a wide variety of ... uh ... likely candidates for casual wrestling fans. Out of the estimated 15 wrestling T-shirts I saw throughout the day, only two featured anyone other than John Cena (one for D-X and one for Triple H). That, in terms of sheer numbers, made Cena about seven times as popular as everyone else combined. Now, while I admit my sample was not exceptionally scientific, I think it shows John Cena is a little more over than much of the Internet gives him credit for. |
| C-R-P-L-S | Posted on 09/30/07 at 23:09:06 Yeah, I don't think anyone has doubted how much merchandise he moves. |
| LillaThrilla | Posted on 10/01/07 at 21:46:21 If the internet smarks hate someone then they're probably reasonably over with the casual fan. :P |
| psz | Posted on 10/01/07 at 22:06:01 WHAT?!? Are you trying to tell me that Hulk Hogan, who was hated by the IWC, was actually OVER with the casual fans??? No friggin' way! |
| Rick Garrard | Posted on 10/02/07 at 02:16:16 That's right Brother. Let me tell ya Mean Gene, watcha gonna do when the IWC runs wild over YOU?! |
| psz | Posted on 10/02/07 at 04:44:31 Say what you will about Cena (God knows I do), he and "Mean" Todd Grisham work well together. |