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

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/AEWrestling/status/1132859918338236418

https://twitter.com/JonMoxley/status/1132868564132741120

i think mox is about to have quite the year
---

I hated Dean Ambrose.

Mox seems cool.
---

https://wrestlingisgood.home.blog/2019/05/27/matches-of-the-week-may-19th-25th/

This week I put the writeups for my top 5 in blog form but they are:

5. Cody vs. Dustin
4. Will Ospreay vs. El Phantasmo
3. Young Bucks vs. Lucha Bros
2. Dragon Lee vs. Shingo
1. Rocky Romero vs. El Phantasmo
---

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/8-gamefaqs-contests/77702749/922434585

TNA's big Pay Per View in 2010:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockdown_(2010)

Attendance: 3,023

now, I understand the argument is going to be scarcity of shows - but if "already being on Spike TV for years" isn't a stronger pro for your company than "has ran no shows" that's an indictment on your shows
---

That's like half the attendance they did in 2007 in the exact same arena.
---

Scarcity of shows and WWE actively driving people to want to seek an alternative. It's two fold.

It's a pointless argument because there's no way to prove it either way, but this is a completely different landscape than 2010 and I don't think selling out two 12000 houses a year is super impressive. If they can do it week after week, yeah they're more relevant than TNA ever was but yeah.
---

Keep in mind I only say 2010 TNA because that's when they had peak hype behind them which to me would be the closest analogue to AEW which is mostly hype right now. If you're looking at peak success of the company that's obviously not the best time to take.
---

I don't think selling out two 12000 houses a year is super impressive.

Then I don't think you really understand what the wrestling landscape in the US outside of WWE has been like in the last twenty years.
---

I don't think you really understand that no wrestling company has really taken the approach AEW has with the opportunity of desolate competition that AEW has right now.
---

tna never once ran a show that a significant number of people would travel for. not one time.
---

i'm prepared to hear out arguments on the quality of TNA forever but don't ever let it be said they had success.
---

Like the way AEW is structured currently, AEW attendance the question is more "are there wrestling fans that are dissatisfied with the alternatives right now" and less "are there wrestling fans that want to see AEW." Before TNA was irreparably poisoned, TNA could've absolutely been that. I think 6000-7000 attendance shows (which is what TNA could get on their bigger events) when you're running shows weekly and WWE is actually competent is more impressive than a 12000 show today when you run two a year.

Wrestling is still a thing that exists. Getting 12000 wrestling fans twice a year when these fans aren't getting a constant supply of shows to sate themselves isn't nothing but it's not as impressive as it looks on paper. A lot of those people just want something to watch and are there for the hype as much as anything.

I want AEW to succeed but I'd take their attendance with a lot of salt until they actually have a brand that has sustained shows and an identity that isn't just hype centered around being not WWE.
---

Lopen posted...

AEW attendance the question is more "are there wrestling fans that are dissatisfied with the alternatives right now" and less "are there wrestling fans that want to see AEW."

an identity that isn't just hype centered around being not WWE.

i couldn't disagree more with this. WWE has been bad for years and it's never done anything for competition. the brand AEW has is what people want to see, and is unique unto itself with its own appeal.
---

Lopen posted...

A lot of those people just want something to watch and are there for the hype as much as anything.

i only just saw this one. i know it's you saying the same thing three times but i have to disagree with it all three times because this completely wrong assumption seems to be central to your argument?
---

Are we really going to pretend like a considerable part of TNA's appeal at a certain point wasn't also that they just weren't WWE? If you're going to make that argument for one you have to make it for the other.
---

Steiner posted...

WWE has been bad for years and it's never done anything for competition.

WWE hasn't been this bad for very long, and the competition has never been newly established brands that have hype to capitalize on. Even TNA had an established identity before it grew into something nationally relevant.

If people are interested in say, RoH as an alternative, they can go watch some RoH before committing to watching a show. It's really not the same thing as AEW at all, which has two shows and a bunch of bluster.

I mean I guess you can say people want an alternative to WWE that has this kind of hype and backing, and that's the brand they want, but I don't think like the whole sports approach and what little else we've heard from AEW is really what's driving people at its heart.

And I'm saying being "not WWE" is a lot bigger deal in 2019 than it was in 2007 or 2013.
---

if this was a show people were just watching out of wwe malaise they wouldn't be flying across the country to fill 13000 seats. the brand is hotter than TNA has ever been.
---

Bigger TNA shows could fill half that. I absolutely believe that a 6 month cooldown period + increased hype and a relatively weaker landscape could account for that difference.

Imagine if in 1995 people were saying that people seeking out "not WWF" in 1989 was as much of a thing as it was in 1995.
---

AEW is a more unique situation that TNA didn't have because 1) back then we didn't really have the access we do now, 2) ROH still existed, 3) the wrestlers they're pushing aren't old, washed up WWE ones (with a notable asterisk to Angle as he was very active), and 4) it's planned very differently, with a very strong focus on advertising its wrestling appeal. and i don't just mean the content in the ring but even the fact that the management are wrestlers, that the creative freedom is openly expressed, and that it's viewed in a grounded, down to earth way.

basically what if you had TNA's budget with ROH's wrestling focus, a priority on distribution/mass marketing, and active, capable people in the business running it. i don't think TNA could've ridden this train because they just didn't focus on what mattered so much and instead were too engrossed in being "not WWE, with old WWE stars." AEW is branding itself as a worldwide place for wrestling, by wrestlers, TNA was a corporate machine. just look at the spokespeople for comparisons: TNA had Dixie, AEW has Cody. even when TNA had Hogan it was viewed less as a wrestler is in charge and more as just Hogan and it ended up getting advertised that way too. here we've got stories about how Omega wanted this freedom and that sort of thing matters in this time.
---

Keep in mind I'm not trying to argue that AEW doesn't have a much better chance of succeeding than TNA ever did.

Just that I don't really think that right now they're a bigger brand than TNA was at its biggest. Give them a few weeks on TNT and barring some catastrophic blunder they're all but a lock to be bigger than TNA, just saying that I'm not really buying that they are right now.
---

Lopen posted...

If people are interested in say, RoH as an alternative, they can go watch some RoH before committing to watching a show

oh yeah, forgot something that relates to this matter too: NXT.
the model NXT used was absolute genius and it didn't take long for it to take out Dragon Gate, make Evolve into a glorified outsourced OVW, kill whatever of TNA (though NJPW did play a bigger role as the years went on), and completely cut ROH at the knees. i'm not sure what impact it had on Chikara or PWG so can't comment much there.

part of it was yes, the WWE connection offering more opportunity but the other big deal was that it was billed - and actually is - HHH's baby. an active wrestler in the business with a budget who cared about people in the industry, who used the seeming bottomless pit of money WWE had to create a revolutionary training center for the wrestlers to improve, to work on their creativity and ability. that's what you had NXT be early on and its focus was on wrestling way more than WWE was.

when you compare AEW to a company, it seems more like they're trying to be NXT's successor and are focused on that idea. TNA couldn't do that because they weren't thinking, acting, or being managed in that way.
---

Lopen posted...

just saying that I'm not really buying that they are right now.

and just to be clear, this is what you're wrong about
---

Yeah I know you think a few thousand more people at 2 shows outweighs a national TV show and sustained events that draw decent houses I'm just clarifying my position
---

Lopen posted...

Yeah I know you think a few thousand more people at 2 shows outweighs a national TV show and sustained events that draw decent houses I'm just clarifying my position

AEW has a national TV show so that's a draw. it's not aired yet but simply having one - they've done. on a bigger station too.

TNA could never sustain drawing - every time they went on the road it was a business disaster, and the majority of all events they ever ran were free attendance.
---

This argument might take on a different look once we get PPV buy numbers.
---

Lopen posted...

Keep in mind I'm not trying to argue that AEW doesn't have a much better chance of succeeding than TNA ever did.

Just that I don't really think that right now they're a bigger brand than TNA was at its biggest. Give them a few weeks on TNT and barring some catastrophic blunder they're all but a lock to be bigger than TNA, just saying that I'm not really buying that they are right now.

...ah, i think i get it. i'd say AEW is currently bigger but it is part of the times. there's a vacuum right now that TNA didn't have, distribution and advertisement have both gotten so much better and easier to do, and management is just so much better, both publicly and internally. TNA at its peak managed to reach the level it did without the opportunities that AEW has as a byproduct of 10 years of internet, therefore it was actually a bigger deal - that the general argument? it was harder for them to reach that level than it has been for AEW to reach their level. time needs to be given for hype to die down because the internet knows how to be extremely focused and then disappear.
---

Yeah if PPV buy numbers are really good (keeping in mind I don't know what really good looks like with PPV buys these days) I'll definitely concede the point. I just don't think drawing 12000 is really good enough to say on its own. I think it's just people being revisionists with how relevant TNA ever was because it's a total joke now. TNA actually did vaguely matter once upon a time.
---

Wanglicious posted...

TNA at its peak managed to reach the level it did without the opportunities that AEW has as a byproduct of 10 years of internet, therefore it was actually a bigger deal - that the general argument? it was harder for them to reach that level than it has been for AEW to reach their level. time needs to be given for hype to die down because the internet knows how to be extremely focused and then disappear.

That's the gist of what I'm getting at yeah.
---

Wanglicious posted...

i'd say AEW is currently bigger

this is the only point i thought we were arguing
---

I like how you cut off the second half of his sentence as if that hasn't been a core part of the point I was making when I was referring to time travelling TNA.
---

the second part is all ancillary - there's lots of explanations for why tna never managed to become as big as this, and they're all a mildly interesting point of discussion and not something i would waste time arguing about. the only thing i'm arguing about is your assertion that at some point in tna's history they would be able to sell out a 12,000 seat arena at some fixed location in the united states. not as to whether it's a bigger deal that tna got to where they did or whatever.
---

Just for reference, TNAs peak PPV buys were 80,000
---

Steiner posted...

the only thing i'm arguing about is your assertion that at some point in tna's history they would be able to sell out a 12,000 seat arena at some fixed location in the united states

Well my whole point is that TNA put into today's wrestling landscape with 6 months of hype per show could, not that it was ever in a position to do so when it existed. That's a product of how it was marketed and hyped and the relative satisfaction people had with mainstream alternatives (WWE) more than its impact on wrestling as a whole though. Like Jeff Hardy and Kurt Angle were bigger gets than Jon Moxley and Chris Jericho, no matter the situation that allowed TNA to get them.

Put it another way, peak TNA had better ratings than WWE does now, and WWE sells houses that have 12000 seats even now, even if it is more rare than it used to be.
---

this comparison to TNA though does bring me to the one biggest concern for AEW come september - weekly television tapings, and filling them. that is going to be a momentous struggle. that's something TNA never answered - you can do the Impact Zone thing, but it's a guaranteed money loser and you're not keeping that hot crowd for long if it's the same one every week. much more likely they take it on the road but getting 1000+ for tv every single week in different cities... that is no doubt a huge challenge.
---

Lopen posted...

Put it another way, peak TNA had better ratings than WWE does now

i thought tna's peak number was 1.4?
---

and just a point about tna's marketing; if you had the tna marketing team on that for 6 months they could turn the 3000 they actually drew into 0
---

Yeah I feel like the ratings bit is false and Google seems to agree
---

i mean i don't "think" but i'm being polite
---

Well TNA had 1.5 on their Monday show, and Jakyl totally tagged me recently and said WWE fell below that on a recent show since I've been actively rooting for WWE to drop below TNA.

Maybe he was mistaken or I'm misremembering though. WWE is pretty close to peak TNA ratings in any case so it's kinda like splitting hairs either way.
---

https://twitter.com/davemeltzerwon/status/936682234555150336

And it's not like they sustained that for any time whatsoever
---

No it happened that Raw hit a 1.5

Theyve just gone back up a little since then thanks to the WILD CARD RULE so it only happened once
---

StealThisSheen posted...

https://twitter.com/davemeltzerwon/status/936682234555150336

And it's not like they sustained that for any time whatsoever

Its wrestling, you round up
---

I was moreso using that to show it was a one time thing
---

It doesn't matter if they sustained it considering half my argument for AEW possibly being a bit of a mirage is it has disproportionate hype to what the standard will be when it's a full time established company (much like that TNA Monday episode had)
---

I mean it makes your argument rather dishonest when you said

"TNA at its peak had better ratings than WWE does now"

and the reality is

"TNA at it's very best one show ever hit ratings the same as WWE's worst and then never again"
---

It's not remotely dishonest considering the context which I assume you probably skipped over since why would you read me rambling for 50 posts.
---

O/U on AEDub chants during Raw
---

i don't know where the argument is at this point but tv and the ppv business in general are in a much different place now than when tna did its highest number.

i don't think aew will hit tna's highest tv numbers, at least not out of the gate, and i could be convinced that tna's highest ppv numbers are higher than double or nothing's. aew is still a much bigger deal than tna ever was.
---

iiicon posted...

i don't think aew will hit tna's highest tv numbers, at least not out of the gate, and i could be convinced that tna's highest ppv numbers are higher than double or nothing's. aew is still a much bigger deal than tna ever was.

yeah i actually debated making this point earlier - i'd be very surprised if AEW came close to a 1.4 out of the gate and 80,000 would be a really good number for Double or Nothing
---

Yeah I read the WWE investor's report too so I already know that
---