Major TNA tapings Spoiler

Robert Roode won the world title by turning heel on James Storm and smashing a beer bottle over his head, to be shown on the 3rd Nov Impact.

Can I just clarify, it isn't April 2012. This huge storyline shift which should have been built for 3-6 months has been taped in the very same month that Roode lost at BFG and Storm won the title.

I take back everything good I said about TNA.

What the hell!?!

This is the most non-sensical thing I have ever heard

... Crips, if this wasn't you coming out with this I would assume someone was WUMing us... It is laughable. You botch your biggest PPV of the year, have a squash title change on free TV the next week and then, when you have the opportunity to build a organisational defining feud you do a Jim from American Pie... Splat... "Wait" ... Splat.

Ridiculous

Ha!

Well, some credit to them for the premise and having the right idea for an angle, but take even more back for the fact they played out a long feud in about two weeks.

Does this do more for Storm than Roode? Storm will now be the one chasing I guess, and it may do a fair bit to get him over.

sodhat wrote:Ha!

Well, some credit to them for the premise and having the right idea for an angle, but take even more back for the fact they played out a long feud in about two weeks.

Does this do more for Storm than Roode? Storm will now be the one chasing I guess, and it may do a fair bit to get him over.

I imagine that's the justification given by Hogan or whoever made the decision.

Normally, it makes sense for the babyface to be chasing the title, but the entire crux of this angle should have been Roode's gradual resentment at Storm's success.

My theory is that this has been booked to deliberately fail. The main event of the next PPV is Roode vs Styles; when the buyrate comes in low, Hogan can cite it as proof that those two shouldn't be main eventing.

This is ridiculous.

"You see Brother, these TNA guys just don't have it. What you need are guys with experience, guys who know the business, not something different that the audience hasn't seen before. The guys up north have Triple H and Kevin Nash, that's going to be HUGE Brother, that's the kind of thing we need..."

I therefore predict the main event of BFG 2012 will be Flair v Hogan in a three stages of hell match.

The first stage will be a loss of respect
The second stage a loss of dignity
The third stage a loss of reality

I would say Hogan wins the first, Flair then second and they fight to a standstill in a 6 minute Iron Man match for the third fall, only interrupted by someone turning off the lights.

Where's Patrick Stewart when you need him?

theundisputedY2D2 wrote:Where's Patrick Stewart when you need him?

Think he's queueing up for his TNA world title shot...

Stewart vs Flair 2012, for all the marbles.

Can someone please clarify what crips wrote because for a minute i thought i read Roode won the title on free TV by turning heel on Storm? Or perhaps i didnt read that correctly.

I think Roode should have won the title anyway, so in a crass, stupid, round-a-bout way, TNA has done that.

They have missed the boat after Angles injury. It could and should have been so much better.

IDIOTS!!!!

Wheres the logic in this? Roode hyped up Storm to go after the title now he turns on him

Surely you keep them close have Storm hold the title for a while and Roode resent him then turn on him wheres the payoff here?

What baffles me more than anything is that they'd have 2 world title changes on free TV less than a month after their biggest PPV of the year.

Can you imagine the WWE Champion retaining the title at Wrestlemania then the title changing hands twice on Raw before the next PPV?!

JoshSansom wrote:"You see Brother, these TNA guys just don't have it. What you need are guys with experience, guys who know the business, not something different that the audience hasn't seen before. The guys up north have Triple H and Kevin Nash, that's going to be HUGE Brother, that's the kind of thing we need..."

I therefore predict the main event of BFG 2012 will be Flair v Hogan in a three stages of hell match.

The first stage will be a loss of respect
The second stage a loss of dignity
The third stage a loss of reality

I would say Hogan wins the first, Flair then second and they fight to a standstill in a 6 minute Iron Man match for the third fall, only interrupted by someone turning off the lights.

first stage is a loss of clothes
Second Stage is a loss of blood
Third stage is a loss of viewers...actually scrap that...I would tune in!

Just quick point about WWE changing titles quickly, I'm fairly sure Jack Swaggers unmemorable reign started the Smackdown after Wrestlemania 26 though it was a money in the bank cash in.

Wierd from TNA though, that said I'm sure WCW started doing these quick title changes before they massively slipped down hill and folded.

Cue Roode being poked in the chest by Hogan, Lethal Lockdown Russos Revenge and a David Arquette title win. Coming soon to the impact zone. Because being an over the hill, everyone hates you and you shouldn't be near a ring matters.

This has Russo written all over it, if he is still at TNA.

Oh aye, I once saw the WCW world title change hands twice on the same show, and once they had a tournament for no.1 contender to receive a title shot that night and Booker T, who was champ at the time, lost in the final but retained his belt later on - he was trying to become no.1 contender why exactly?

The idea that Hogan will use a failed run as justification for his own title reign next year is the real fear.

To those who criticise, WWE recently had THREE different WWE Champions in one episode of Raw.

Rey Mysterio beat The Miz to win the vacant WWE Championship
John Cena beat Rey Mysterio to become the new WWE Champion
CM Punk shows up and is still the WWE Champion

Marky wrote:To those who criticise, WWE recently had THREE different WWE Champions in one episode of Raw.

Rey Mysterio beat The Miz to win the vacant WWE Championship
John Cena beat Rey Mysterio to become the new WWE Champion
CM Punk shows up and is still the WWE Champion

Im not always big on WWEs booking but they actually did that pretty well were as TNA have pretty much botched Roode and his push. They built him into their top face and a contender have him lose put the title on his weaker partner who hasnt had the gigantic push then have him turn on his partner and beat him

They also did all this in taped shows.

Marky wrote:To those who criticise, WWE recently had THREE different WWE Champions in one episode of Raw.

Rey Mysterio beat The Miz to win the vacant WWE Championship
John Cena beat Rey Mysterio to become the new WWE Champion
CM Punk shows up and is still the WWE Champion

You're missing my point. The main deal in that they've done it a matter of weeks after their biggest PPV of the year. If CM Punk was pushed as a super face before Mania like Roode was, Punk then lost to Del Rio at Mania, Cena then beat Del Rio for the title on Raw then the week after Punk heel turned on Cena to win the title. What value does that give the main event of the biggest PPV of the year?

Mr H wrote:

Marky wrote:To those who criticise, WWE recently had THREE different WWE Champions in one episode of Raw.

Rey Mysterio beat The Miz to win the vacant WWE Championship
John Cena beat Rey Mysterio to become the new WWE Champion
CM Punk shows up and is still the WWE Champion

You're missing my point. The main deal in that they've done it a matter of weeks after their biggest PPV of the year. If CM Punk was pushed as a super face before Mania like Roode was, Punk then lost to Del Rio at Mania, Cena then beat Del Rio for the title on Raw then the week after Punk heel turned on Cena to win the title. What value does that give the main event of the biggest PPV of the year?

I thought the would've been noted, but never mind. While i'm here, i'll answer your hypothetical question.

If Punk lost to Del Rio at Mania, Cena then beat Del Rio on Raw one week later and then Punk turned heel on Cena to win the title, it'd be far too rushed booking. My tongue in cheek comment was implying that if WWE did that, there wouldn't be half as much criticism on here.

Roode gets built up, loses to Angle, Storm beats Angle with no build, Roode turns on Storm with no build. Not good. Total cluster Flip if you ask me. But I don't think it undervalues the main event of the biggest PPV of the year, I think it goes the other way. It overvalues it's weekly TV show. If all this was live on Sky Sports at 2am every Monday night/Tuesday morning, it'd rate Impact as totally unpredictable and keep the viewer hooked on the "anything can happen" tag that goes with it. But TNA being taped kills the "anything can happen" tag for a lot of fans who would rather read the spoilers (myself included).

[quote="Marky"][quote="Mr H"]

Marky wrote: If all this was live on Sky Sports at 2am every Monday night/Tuesday morning, it'd rate Impact as totally unpredictable and keep the viewer hooked on the "anything can happen" tag that goes with it. But TNA being taped kills the "anything can happen" tag for a lot of fans who would rather read the spoilers (myself included).

Unbelieveable.
They take someone as over as Roode and rush him into a heel turn, ridiculous booking.

Dx Dan. wrote:Unbelieveable.
They take someone as over as Roode and rush him into a heel turn, ridiculous booking.

Don't worry with Russo Bischoff and Hogan in charge he'll turn again in a few weeks

Most of the content on this forum is hypothetical pal so no need to try and be a smartass.

If the WWE did do that of course there would be criticism, the IWC would be up in arms.

If all this was live on Sky Sports at 2am every Monday night/Tuesday morning, it'd rate Impact as totally unpredictable and keep the viewer hooked on the "anything can happen" tag that goes with it. But TNA being taped kills the "anything can happen" tag for a lot of fans who would rather read the spoilers (myself included).

Smackdown has been averaging a 3+ rating in October compared to an average 1.3 rating for Impact yet Smackdown is taped 4 days before it airs. So your point isnt really valid.

Bobby Roode should havw simply won the World Title at BFG and after a month or two became too big for his boots which would result in him turning heel and allowing Storm and AJ to feud with him, I'd have Daniels choose Roode's side and have Original members of Fortune to branch off and have face Fortune and heel Fortune, guys like MCMG's and Joe and Eric Young could become involved

Going back to hogans interview, are they trying to set up hardy vs roode?

Mr H wrote:Most of the content on this forum is hypothetical pal so no need to try and be a smartass.

If the WWE did do that of course there would be criticism, the IWC would be up in arms.

If all this was live on Sky Sports at 2am every Monday night/Tuesday morning, it'd rate Impact as totally unpredictable and keep the viewer hooked on the "anything can happen" tag that goes with it. But TNA being taped kills the "anything can happen" tag for a lot of fans who would rather read the spoilers (myself included).

Smackdown has been averaging a 3+ rating in October compared to an average 1.3 rating for Impact yet Smackdown is taped 4 days before it airs. So your point isnt really valid.

You have to take into account WWEs marketing budget compared to TNAs networks different nights etc

marty2086 wrote:

Mr H wrote:Most of the content on this forum is hypothetical pal so no need to try and be a smartass.

If the WWE did do that of course there would be criticism, the IWC would be up in arms.

If all this was live on Sky Sports at 2am every Monday night/Tuesday morning, it'd rate Impact as totally unpredictable and keep the viewer hooked on the "anything can happen" tag that goes with it. But TNA being taped kills the "anything can happen" tag for a lot of fans who would rather read the spoilers (myself included).

Smackdown has been averaging a 3+ rating in October compared to an average 1.3 rating for Impact yet Smackdown is taped 4 days before it airs. So your point isnt really valid.

You have to take into account WWEs marketing budget compared to TNAs networks different nights etc

Marketing has nothing to do with it. Marky was trying to say that pre-taped shows kill the 'anything can happen' tag for a lot of fans who read spoilers, thus implying that if impact was aired on live TV it would gain more viewers. My point is that Smackdown is a pre-taped show yet gains more than double the viewers Impact get. Reading spoilers online has nothing to do with marketing. Fans clearly read the Smackdown spoilers yet still watch it, yet read the Impact spoilers and choose not to.

[quote="Mr H]Marketing has nothing to do with it. Marky was trying to say that pre-taped shows kill the 'anything can happen' tag for a lot of fans who read spoilers, thus implying that if impact was aired on live TV it would gain more viewers. My point is that Smackdown is a pre-taped show yet gains more than double the viewers Impact get. Reading spoilers online has nothing to do with marketing. Fans clearly read the Smackdown spoilers yet still watch it, yet read the Impact spoilers and choose not to.[/quote]

Marketing has everything to do with it if your reaching a larger audience your chances of getting bigger viewing figures are improved plus WWE are aiming at a different audience ie kids are less likely to be checking out spoiler(IMO)

Well - No. That's not true at all is it H;

WWE has a bigger fan base than TNA. So obviously Smackdown would get more viewers than Impact. Regardless of spoilers. It's not the same sample size.

To disprove Marky's theory - you would need to either compare Raw's viewing figures to Smackdown, or comare viewing figures of a live Impact to a pre-taped one.

You're comparing apples and snickers bars.

Mr H wrote:Most of the content on this forum is hypothetical pal so no need to try and be a smartass.

If the WWE did do that of course there would be criticism, the IWC would be up in arms.

If all this was live on Sky Sports at 2am every Monday night/Tuesday morning, it'd rate Impact as totally unpredictable and keep the viewer hooked on the "anything can happen" tag that goes with it. But TNA being taped kills the "anything can happen" tag for a lot of fans who would rather read the spoilers (myself included).

Smackdown has been averaging a 3+ rating in October compared to an average 1.3 rating for Impact yet Smackdown is taped 4 days before it airs. So your point isnt really valid.

At no point was I trying to be a smartass.

Smackdown isn't an unpredictable show where anything can happen, it's a well written, well booked show. Hence the higher ratings. Impact is garbage. I'm not debating that.

And I didn't say there wouldn't be criticism from the IWC, but surely you believe that a higher percentage of wrestling fans would criticise something TNA did, than the wrestling fans who would criticise WWE if they did an identical storyline. Purely because many of the IWC are rose-tinted glasses wearing WWE fans.

Electric Demon wrote:Well - No. That's not true at all is it H;

WWE has a bigger fan base than TNA. So obviously Smackdown would get more viewers than Impact. Regardless of spoilers. It's not the same sample size.

To disprove Marky's theory - you would need to either compare Raw's viewing figures to Smackdown, or comare viewing figures of a live Impact to a pre-taped one.

You're comparing apples and snickers bars.

Wrong.

Marky wrote this:

If all this was live on Sky Sports at 2am every Monday night/Tuesday morning, it'd rate Impact as totally unpredictable and keep the viewer hooked on the "anything can happen" tag that goes with it. But TNA being taped kills the "anything can happen" tag for a lot of fans who would rather read the spoilers (myself included).

If you actually digest what has been said here. Smackdowns is a pre-taped show, right? A pre-taped show is bringing in an average 3.0 rating, the same rating as Raw which is aired on live TV. So tell me how the 'anything can happen' tag has any bearing on the Smackdown ratings when a lot of viewers will have already read the spoilers online?

I dont care about marketing, its irrelevant to my point, i was simply stating that Marky implying that if Impact was aired live it would be unpredictable and keep viewers hooked on the 'anything can happen' tag was an invalid point. Because Smackdown is pre-taped yet brings in more viewers. Its nothing to do with airing live. If the product looks good when reading spoilers, you'll tune in to watch it irrespective if you know whats going to happen!

Marky wrote:

Mr H wrote:Most of the content on this forum is hypothetical pal so no need to try and be a smartass.

If the WWE did do that of course there would be criticism, the IWC would be up in arms.

If all this was live on Sky Sports at 2am every Monday night/Tuesday morning, it'd rate Impact as totally unpredictable and keep the viewer hooked on the "anything can happen" tag that goes with it. But TNA being taped kills the "anything can happen" tag for a lot of fans who would rather read the spoilers (myself included).

Smackdown has been averaging a 3+ rating in October compared to an average 1.3 rating for Impact yet Smackdown is taped 4 days before it airs. So your point isnt really valid.

At no point was I trying to be a smartass.

Smackdown isn't an unpredictable show where anything can happen, it's a well written, well booked show. Hence the higher ratings. Impact is garbage. I'm not debating that.

And I didn't say there wouldn't be criticism from the IWC, but surely you believe that a higher percentage of wrestling fans would criticise something TNA did, than the wrestling fans who would criticise WWE if they did an identical storyline. Purely because many of the IWC are rose-tinted glasses wearing WWE fans.

This is exactly my point. Airing Impact live would make no difference. We saw the evidence when they aired Impact on Monday nights. Its beyond that, its the booking of the show which will bring in viewers, not an air of unpredictabilty because its a live show.

SmackDown! ain't getting 3s in the ratings, they haven't done 3s in years, they managed to hit 2.3 which is a far cry from the 1.7/8/9s it was doing for the last year odds

You can thank Mark ' F'n Ratings' Henry

Impact beats WWE in the UK.

Who says that marketing and channel have nothing to do with it?

the-gaffer wrote:SmackDown! ain't getting 3s in the ratings, they haven't done 3s in years, they managed to hit 2.3 which is a far cry from the 1.7/8/9s it was doing for the last year odds

You can thank Mark ' F'n Ratings' Henry

I beg your pardon. I misread the webpage, it said they averaged 3.1m viewers, not a rating of 3.1. Thats what you get for minimising your screen and typing discreetly whilst at work!

Even so, a 2.3 for a pre-taped show against Raw which was getting 2.9's isnt bad going.

And Hobo, Impact beats WWE in the UK because Challenge TV is a freeview channel.

[quote="Mr H"]

the-gaffer wrote:
Even so, a 2.3 for a pre-taped show against Raw which was getting 2.9's isnt bad going.
.

Doesn't that (potentially - if simplistically) go some way to proving Marky's point?

Adam D (Hobo) wrote:Impact beats WWE in the UK.

Who says that marketing and channel have nothing to do with it?

No, but Challenge TV is free and Sky Sports is £20ish per month.

This should have happened over Months Roode getting more and more jealous etc....to do it in 2 weeks is probably the most stupid thing I ever have seen in the history of the buisness.

Roode and Storm could have been stars build over months, now they will just get lost in the shuffle

Terrible just terrible, I watch Tna each week ( cos it on free tv) and words escape me just how dissapointing this is

Why not just have Roode win at BFG and Storm turn heel cos he is jealous of Roodes success. The fans were really behind Roode, now 2 weeks later and he is a heel?!!!

Where is the bloody logic Hogan, wheres the logic???????

you know what fudge you TNA!

[quote="Electric Demon"]

Mr H wrote:

the-gaffer wrote:
Even so, a 2.3 for a pre-taped show against Raw which was getting 2.9's isnt bad going.
.

Doesn't that (potentially - if simplistically) go some way to proving Marky's point?

No, because the difference between a 2.3 rated pre-taped show to a 1.3 rated pre-taped show is huge. Both of which air at 9pm on American TV. Impact wouldnt get more viewers if it aired live, simple as that. The problem lies deeper than that.

Yes - but arguably Impact would rate higher than 1.3 if no-one knew the results beforehand? But understandably would still get nowhere near 2.3?

Adam D (Hobo) wrote:Impact beats WWE in the UK.

Who says that marketing and channel have nothing to do with it?

I believe Impact is on a freeview digital channel where as WWE is only on Sky. That might have something to do with it.

Some people thought TNA where going to try and emulate the Eddie Edwards/Davie Richards feud, Iwas never convinced they had the patience and ability to book such a long planned well booked storyline

The right guy is World Champion, no doubts about it, they boobed big time BUT it should have happened had the PPV, I knew they'd throw the title on him at a taped show at the crap Impact Zone, it's never going to have the same meaning.

It was a wrong move at BFG, 2 wrongs don't make a right and 3 wrongs certainly don't

Samo wrote:

Adam D (Hobo) wrote:Impact beats WWE in the UK.

Who says that marketing and channel have nothing to do with it?

I believe Impact is on a freeview digital channel where as WWE is only on Sky. That might have something to do with it.

He said "marketing and channel" I think that's his point. I disagree that impact would do more with live shows, recordings allow proper editing and rerecording of promos etc- they should be slick well presented shows.

Ent wrote:

Samo wrote:

Adam D (Hobo) wrote:Impact beats WWE in the UK.

Who says that marketing and channel have nothing to do with it?

I believe Impact is on a freeview digital channel where as WWE is only on Sky. That might have something to do with it.

He said "marketing and channel" I think that's his point. I disagree that impact would do more with live shows, recordings allow proper editing and rerecording of promos etc- they should be slick well presented shows.

Sorry, just in from work and my heads up my arse, disregard it, lol.

Ent wrote:

Samo wrote:

Adam D (Hobo) wrote:Impact beats WWE in the UK.

Who says that marketing and channel have nothing to do with it?

I believe Impact is on a freeview digital channel where as WWE is only on Sky. That might have something to do with it.

He said "marketing and channel" I think that's his point. I disagree that impact would do more with live shows, recordings allow proper editing and rerecording of promos etc- they should be slick well presented shows.

Still doesn't hide the fact that when the Exec. Producer goes on the mic he stumbles and trips over his lines

That's what I mean, if the show is patchy now it could potentially be disastrous live.

Electric Demon wrote:Yes - but arguably Impact would rate higher than 1.3 if no-one knew the results beforehand? But understandably would still get nowhere near 2.3?

When Impact was live on Mondays in 2010, it pulled in ratings of 0.7 to 0.9. And this was after they moved the start time to air before Raw. This was also when Hulk Hogan just took over, and when Angle v Anderson had their 'hot' fued.

Yet fast forward 18 months where Eric Bischoff is fueding with his son and a midcarder is World Champion and they are pulling in ratings of 1.3.

This proves that a live show doesnt guarantee ratings.