Board 8 > All-Purpose Wrestling Topic 484: Paradigm Shift

(+) Yeah! (+)

Yeah ROH drawing ~600 fans to their anniversary show in the same city where the same guys who were on top of what was their biggest show ever last year (at ~4000) sold 12000 in 4 minutes makes it seem kinda hard to say the Elite aren't reliably drawing.
---

I meant Cody and the Bucks

If your argument is that Chris Jericho and Kenny Omega are dudes who could sell out 12000 seat houses in 4 minutes at this point well I can't exactly prove you wrong but I'm skeptical. Would love to be wrong though! The more star power AEW has the better imo.
---

I didn't say they don't draw I said they don't draw 12000 sellouts, as ~4000 is a far cry from that.
---

Steiner posted...

I thought I was done but I gotta know these shows Kenny and Chris Jericho aren't reliably drawing on

how many people can fit on a boat, like 10?
---

Lopen posted...

I didn't say they don't draw I said they don't draw 12000 sellouts, as ~4000 is a far cry from that.

You said they couldn't reliably draw at that level on the indie scene, and we're not talking about the indie scene here.

You have to look at drawing in relative terms. When ROH's average attendance falls by (generously) 50% or 60% when Cody and the Bucks leave I feel like it's hard not to call them reliable draws.
---

Cody is a draw anywhere in the world right now, let alone the whole crew together
---

Is it bad that I want AEW to do so well that Vince is forced out of power so that the talent in WWE are happy, and the booking can start making sense again?
---

NBIceman posted...

what was their biggest show ever last year (at ~4000)

6100 actually!
---

Well I think it's a bit more complicated than just those 3 leaving first of all unless you can actually point to the attendance dropping off a cliff immediately after they left. RoH has had a lot of questionable decisions as far as booking and whatnot in the past year (can I blame The Kingdom instead), and those guys are just some of the bigger names that left.
---

so if AEW as a brand can't explain AEW's drawing power

and AEW's roster can't explain AEW's drawing power

and RoH and TNA have made no headway in capitalizing on anti-WWE sentiment

how did they do a number
---

Tom Bombadil posted...

so if AEW as a brand can't explain AEW's drawing power

and AEW's roster can't explain AEW's drawing power

and RoH and TNA have made no headway in capitalizing on anti-WWE sentiment

how did they do a number

He can correct me if I'm wrong but I think his point was always just that AEW as of now is no different than TNA ever was.

To me it's not even so much that he's underselling AEW as way overselling TNA.
---

My point is that AEW right now is capitalizing so well because it's a relative unknown with a lot of hype and almost as importantly because it only has two shows a year.

With an established brand like RoH or TNA you can only capitalize on anti-WWE sentiment so well because you know exactly what you're getting there if you care to put the effort in. You don't just have to be anti-WWE but also pro what they're offering to some extent, and if what they're offering isn't working for you it's a pass.

I think the sales of the first month or so of TV tapings will be telling on how much the "lack of shows" factor is helping them, and the ratings of the first month or so of TV will be telling on how much interest there actually is in AEW as a thing that exists on its own merits. Of course it'll go up or down from there based on the quality, but yeah.
---

So people had just no interest in Cody vs Dustin or Omega vs Jericho.

They just hate Vince.

That seems weird.
---

Lopen posted...

My point is that AEW right now is capitalizing so well because it's a relative unknown with a lot of hype and almost as importantly because it only has two shows a year.

With an established brand like RoH or TNA you can only capitalize on anti-WWE sentiment so well because you know exactly what you're getting there if you care to put the effort in. You don't just have to be anti-WWE but also pro what they're offering to some extent, and if what they're offering isn't working for you it's a pass.

i actually agree with this! i only spent so long arguing because you said tna was ever at this level. when tna was fresh it was doing weekly pay per views with no buzz and when it got good tv it was established as something where people pretty much knew what they were getting

the other difference is i don't think "anti wwe sentiment" is a big enough factor to sell a single ticket and you were clearly unaware of how successful as draws the elite have proven to be, which is what made all your other arguments sound stupid (and you tried to discuss the 2019 wrestling business without even knowing one of the big stories - the MSG sellout)

but this point, i agree with! and in the first 6 weeks more and more people will find out aew isn't what their imagined version of a perfect wrestling show is and jump off board and it's only from that point they'll get to build their own base
---

I didn't say there was no interest in those things.

I'm saying compared to the best of TNA I doubt that there was more interest in that than there was in TNA, because at a point TNA as a brand was semi-relevant. And yeah the environment being soft due to WWE leaving a power void combined with a lack of shows from AEW inflated the numbers on the show a bit, that's all.

My argument is less no one cares about AEW and more that less people care about it (currently-- I expect that their shows on TNT will actually be good and they'll realize their potential quickly) than you might think from just taking the numbers at face value.
---

Lopen posted...

My argument is less no one cares about AEW and more that less people care about it (currently-- I expect that their shows on TNT will actually be good and they'll realize their potential quickly) than you might think from just taking the numbers at face value.

i thought it was that TNA were at some point in their history as big as aew are now
---

I think you're underestimating what TNA at its best was. Throw out the 1.4 rating for a bit-- 0.9-1.1 ratings which they were able to reliably draw when some people still liked TNA is still pretty good and relevant for a wrestling show, and their non Impact Zone attendances were generally pretty okay in the 3-5000 range.

Yes, way below WWE at the time but they were a strong #2 for a while there, and reliably pulling those figures is a number I'd put above what AEW is now because taking the 12000 attendance figure at face value is a mistake. If AEW runs a show every week right now it's not getting anywhere near 12000 at all of them or even all the major ones. Maybe once the TNT deal kicks in they'll establish a base that can do that, but we're talking right now.
---

I think you're underestimating what TNA at its best was.

We're really, really not.
---

Lopen posted...

and their non Impact Zone attendances were generally pretty okay in the 3-5000 range.

June 2008-Dec 2008: 36 shows (1188 average) and 35 other shows
Jan 2009-Dec 2009: 61 shows (1198 average) and 49 other shows
Jan 2010-Dec 2010: 67 shows (1284 average) and 51 other shows
Jan 2011-Dec 2011: 74 shows (1314 average) and 58 other shows
Jan 2012-Dec 2012: 58 shows (1064 average) and 69 other shows
Jan 2013-Dec 2013: 60 shows (1493 average) and 30 other shows
Jan 2014-Feb 2014: 13 shows (1723 average)
http://indeedwrestling.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-word-about-roh-and-tna-draws.html

"I wasn't including the Orlando tapings in my calculations."
---

if we're gonna have a tna argument can we get smuffin in here
---

please no
---

Okay I guess I'm wrong on that! I was mostly just looking at PPVs, admittedly, which is probably more fair to compare to a 12000 show since we should be comparing shows with hype to shows with hype, but whatever.

I still think you guys are underestimating the value of a TV deal though. Like I have a lot of lapsed wrestling fan friends who knew what TNA was back when it was on Spike every week. Usually they'd just make fun of its name, sometimes they'd be like "wow Kurt Angle is on this show!" then promptly tune out to never return after seeing Kurt Angle.

But yeah like, not one of them knows what AEW is, currently, or at least haven't mentioned anything about it. Granted those people aren't buying tickets to see shows or PPVs or anything either.

Like if your argument is AEW is bigger currently among current wrestling fans than TNA ever was I could buy that. Bigger among the population as a whole though I don't know. There's a certain notoriety having a show on a fairly large Cable TV network every week brings you. Less now with more cord cutting I guess but still.

Now this is moot because AEW has a TV deal and they'll have that very soon, but we're talking currently.
---

Lopen posted...

Like I have a lot of lapsed wrestling fan friends who knew what TNA was back when it was on Spike every week. Usually they'd just make fun of its name, sometimes they'd be like "wow Kurt Angle is on this show!" then promptly tune out to never return after seeing Kurt Angle.

well you've certainly convinced me TNA was really strong
---

It had a million viewers every week along with those hecklers! That's worth something!
---

Lopen posted...

I still think you guys are underestimating the value of a TV deal though

we're not, but AEW has a better TV deal so it's an argument in AEW's favour.
---

Lopen posted...

It had a million viewers every week along with those hecklers! That's worth something!

Yeah. If this was 2010.

i don't understand - is your argument now "well tna's television show has aired"? i dunno if i need to spell this out but a huge part of the confidence we have in aew, and reason we believe it's already more successful than tna ever has been, is signing that tv deal. if you want to moot it because it doesn't start yet then... i don't even know what discussion there is to have.
---

To me it's not because it's not actually in place yet.

Like if the argument is AEW is theoretically bigger than TNA ever was if you count it as though they were already on TV since that's already agreed on, I'm with you.

But I feel like you shouldn't count that until they're actually on TV and you see the rating they're grabbing.
---

welp, i guess we found our biggest misunderstanding
---

Like say AEW's TV show only pulls a 0.5, is it bigger than TNA then? I'm not really sure. I think it'll do significantly better than that, personally, but I'm not going to say selling out a 12000 house makes them a lock to do that.
---

i mean, the tv deal is signed and isn't about to be unsigned - it's a factor that is in play at the point we're having this conversation, and it's a better tv deal than impact ever had.
---

Just to note I've been saying that "AEW is all but a lock to be bigger than TNA after a few weeks of their TV deal have actually been in place" since the start! But yeah I think if you're just going to assume they have to do better than TNA because they're on a bigger network than Spike (and frankly they're in the same ballpark either way-- this isn't PopTV vs TNT here) and because they drew a big show, I disagree with that.
---

yeah i'm actually making no assumptions about what they do on TV - i'm solely talking about where we stand today, with AEW having a TV deal with TNT signed, and that making them more successful than TNA ever was.
---

I mean I feel like you have to be implicitly assuming they'll do something vaguely respectable on TV for that deal to have value. Unless you're just talking financially since TNA was always a money pit.
---

i simply mean that signing that tv deal is a level of success that tna never pulled off
---

AEW will never reach TNA's grand heights until they recognise the king of wrestling bookers, Vince Russo. Until then it's a shame they're doomed to failure.

Lopen, TNA has never and will never have the level of pure unadulterated backing that allows for high quality lighting, camerawork and soundwork that AEW already has. And that's because Tony Khan comes from the business of professional broadcasting that Dixie Carter didn't. And that, quite frankly, Jeff Jarrett didn't. This is a professional product with very few hitches out of the gate. The personnel could use more experience filming in-ring action, but this IS that experience. Khan also has so much more cash on hand to fund a venture than TNA ever did. Dixie was constantly trying to hoodwink her parents in the same way WWE cooks its books for its financiers now.

AEW not only has this massive backing with value in terms of fiscal and physical resources it can use, but it also has a strong deal with a network that TNA never had. Just because the deal hasn't kicked, that doesn't mean it isn't a better deal. The company has more value without having started TV than TNA did at its peak of business.

The only comparison you can reasonably make with AEW is WCW. A strong financial backing and a TV deal that mitigates the cost of TV is, in many ways, similar to WCW. The exception is that Turner provided both of those things for WCW and only one of them to AEW. You're line of thinking - comparing it to TNA - is exactly the WWE line of thinking. It's flawed and it's dangerous. You should always overestimate your opponents. Because when you don't, and you become apathetic to competition, you stagnate.
---

Kyubit_Foxstar posted...

AEW will never reach TNA's grand heights until they recognise the king of wrestling bookers, Vince Russo. Until then it's a shame they're doomed to failure.

Russo put out a tweet today where he says he is confident its all a work and WWE runs AEW
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Kyubit_Foxstar posted...

AEW will never reach TNA's grand heights until they recognise the king of wrestling bookers, Vince Russo. Until then it's a shame they're doomed to failure.

Russo put out a tweet today where he says he is confident its all a work and WWE runs AEW

I think Russo is desperately trying to create the wrestling world's greatest swerve as his own head canon.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Kyubit_Foxstar posted...

AEW will never reach TNA's grand heights until they recognise the king of wrestling bookers, Vince Russo. Until then it's a shame they're doomed to failure.

Russo put out a tweet today where he says he is confident its all a work and WWE runs AEW

Making a competitor is the only logical move when you run an unchallenged monopoly, I'm glad Russo's still got it.

Well I don't think it's a matter of me underestimating AEW as much as not counting things they don't have until they are actually using them

Like this whole time I'm saying "AEW is basically a lock to be bigger than TNA once they're on TV, but they aren't currently" whereas you guys seem to be saying because they've got all these ducks in a row they're currently a bigger deal.

I'm not saying this is the wrong way of looking at things necessarily, just explaining the main reason of why my thought process isn't lining up. I am in no way intending to imply that AEW can't or isn't likely to eclipse TNA, just that technically speaking by my scorecard it hasn't until we actually see these assets in motion.
---

Wait, is Cody really that much of a draw? Like I don't really believe he's on the same level as Omega or Jericho.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Wait, is Cody really that much of a draw? Like I don't really believe he's on the same level as Omega or Jericho.

he's a step below those two but was the biggest draw for ROH over the past couple of years, right along with the Bucks
---

https://twitter.com/SoDuTw/status/1133476814477832194

this is one of the most damning tells about wwe and what they value
---

I heard that match was actually great, which isn't surprising.

I would have been more surprised if it made the Hulu cut though.

Tell me the Uso party stuff made it in over that though, or that legendarily bad Shane segment
---

Who tunes into SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT to see a great wrestling match? The people demand bad mic segments with the CEOs son and a terrible party!
---

Dave said he got the impression that they figured to combat AEW they wanted to focus on what they think they do best, which is non-wrestling segments
---

Well... I guess that's logical in its own baffling way.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Dave said he got the impression that they figured to combat AEW they wanted to focus on what they think they do best, which is non-wrestling segments

then what are they paying all these wrestlers for!
---