5/10/99 "8.1" ... could that ever happen with the right consistent booking again?

[The Great One]

Will TNA ever do 1.8?

TNA has done over a 2.0 before :Jordan:

 

[tremonthustler1]

Wrestling is dying (no trolling).

It's just not as popular as we'd love for it to be. There will always be a devoted fanbase, but other than events like RR, Wrestlemania and SummerSlam, it's just not the same as it used to be.

People liken WWE to a soap opera inside of a squared circle. Guess what? Soap operas aren't exactly as big as they used to be either.

 

[Lewis Black]

Wrestling is dying (no trolling).

It's just not as popular as we'd love for it to be. There will always be a devoted fanbase, but other than events like RR, Wrestlemania and SummerSlam, it's just not the same as it used to be.

People liken WWE to a soap opera inside of a squared circle. Guess what? Soap operas aren't exactly as big as they used to be either.

no lol.

We was just lucky enough to see it peak. 96-02

it was probably like this pre 96

 

[Toe Jay Simpson]

That was more of a reflection of the entire atmosphere of the times. The music, a lot of the other stuff on TV...it was really a young aggressive person's world culturally. We're talking about a time where if you sold 200,000 albums your first week you might only come in at #5 on the Billboard charts. It was just a big decade that went out in a big way.

 

[DANJ!]

no lol.

We was just lucky enough to see it peak. 96-02

it was probably like this pre 96

Exactly... people forget the boom period was just that. If it was that popular all the time, it wouldn't have been a boom period. The mid-to-late-80s were huge, then it died down around '90, and was at a low by the mid-90s. It wasn't "dying", it just wasn't mainstream. Then the NWO era in WCW/Attitude Era in WWF happened and blew it back up, and it died down again around '01-'02. shyt happens. A new boom could happen a year from now for all we know... it's really all in the timing. It's not any worse off now than it was in say, 1993.

 

[No_bammer_weed]

no lol.

We was just lucky enough to see it peak. 96-02

it was probably like this pre 96

This is right.

I downloaded all the wrestling observers from the early 90s, and the business that both WCW and WWE were doing, combined, in one year, probably wouldnt equal what the WWE is doing now in 2-3 months. Sht was that bad, negative image, little interest, no stars, scandals...WCW in particular was hemorraging money ---- there is no way anyone could have predicted the business explosion that would commence a few years later.

WWE is healthy and profitable, and Panda energy seems like they have an endless capitol stream to pump into the wrestling division. Another boom will happen --- to the degree of the monday night wars? Not sure, but one will happen. WWE has found a comfortable niche as an accepted mainstream entertainment company, and not a freak, sideshow blithe on pop culture. The table is set for a boom, with the right idea/star.

 

[jackswstd]

Never, things have changed too much audiences are fickle.

 

[JerseyBoy23]

That was a great night but whenever I see this topic on any board I always feel like it's not possible.

Too many variables were involved including probably the biggest one, there was no Nitro cause the NBA playoffs were on TNT. If you check the ratings surrounding it the week before and after were both 6.4's so it was even an anomaly in 99 to have an 8.1 rating.

 

[Tommy Fits]

I remember Raw went unopposed that night and HBK guest refed the main event. I think the main event was a 6 man tag

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

THE INTERNET HAS DESTROYED THE IDEA OF "MUST SEE TV" BROTHER! WHEN YOU COMBINE DVR'S, YOUTUBE, TORRENTS, WWE'S OWN WEBSITE, AND THE PLETHORA OF ILLEGAL STREAMS, YOU SEE WHY IT'S UNLIKELY THAT RATINGS WILL EVER BE THAT DRAMATIC AGAIN, DUDE! TELEVISION JUST ISN'T DESTINATION MEDIA ANYMORE, MEAN GENE! FRANKLY VINCE SHOULD STOP WORRYING ABOUT RATINGS, MY MAIN MAN!

BUT EXPERTS AT HARVARD DID CONCLUDE FROM MULTIPLE STUDIES THAT IF THE HULKSTER RETURNED TO WWE AGAIN TO GIVE JOHN CENA THE RUB, THE RATINGS WOULD REACH AT LEAST 11.4, BROTHER!

 

[Swiggy]

THE INTERNET HAS DESTROYED THE IDEA OF "MUST SEE TV" BROTHER! WHEN YOU COMBINE DVR'S, YOUTUBE, TORRENTS, WWE'S OWN WEBSITE, AND THE PLETHORA OF ILLEGAL STREAMS, YOU SEE WHY IT'S UNLIKELY THAT RATINGS WILL EVER BE THAT DRAMATIC AGAIN, DUDE! TELEVISION JUST ISN'T DESTINATION MEDIA ANYMORE, MEAN GENE! FRANKLY VINCE SHOULD STOP WORRYING ABOUT RATINGS, MY MAIN MAN!

BUT EXPERTS AT HARVARD DID CONCLUDE FROM MULTIPLE STUDIES THAT IF THE HULKSTER RETURNED TO WWE AGAIN TO GIVE JOHN CENA THE RUB, THE RATINGS WOULD REACH AT LEAST 11.4, BROTHER!

But what do Brooke's feets do, brother?

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

But what do Brooke's feets do, brother?

THEY'RE BIG ENOUGH TO WEAR THE BOOTS I WAS WEARING WHEN I MURDERED ANDRE THE GIANT, JACK!

 

[Swiggy]

THEY'RE BIG ENOUGH TO WEAR THE BOOTS I WAS WEARING WHEN I MURDERED ANDRE THE GIANT, JACK!

 

[boriquaking]

It's not about booking... and especially since the episode u used as an example was from May '99, because Russo and Ferrara were getting away with some wack shyt by then.

It's about how cool wrestling is at the time. Simple as that. It had reached a certain level of popularity and it brought on a lot of casual fans AND bandwagon fans. There are people right now who don't watch wrestling no matter how good or bad the booking is, but 14 years ago watched Al Snow and Bossman feuding because Bossman cooked Snow's dog.

If something happens that makes wrestling the "in thing" to watch again, similar ratings will come. But it won't have to do with booking, it'll have to do with a particular group of stars or an overall presentation that restores that "boom period" level of viewership. When you have that, the writers can pretty much book whatever they want and people will watch because "OMG wrestling iz kool".

the booking is what makes it cool. last night we had a sing off and a dance contest. albert in womens underwear bro. thats not cool. the rock and stone cold were cool, along with everyone else in that era because of the booking. that and the characters, but really characters mean shyt without a good story to go along with it.

you'd be foolish to tell me if you took the talent on the roster and placed them in an engaging story that viewership wouldnt skyrocket. you dont have casual fans anymore. you only have wrestling fans. because the stories suck. soap operas have stupid fukking plots and women are glued to their sets because they're more engaging that the shyt on our tv every monday night.

steve martin once said "be so good they cant ignore you." and that was the case in the attitude era.

without a good story you could have every dream talent on the roster and it wouldnt matter, because casual fans dont care about suplexes and spinebusters.


:edit:

honestly we really just said the same fukking thing. but booking is what makes it the "in thing" again, not a lucky roll of the dice.

 

[Ace Money]

I think it's possible, but the likelihood of it every occurring again is dependent upon too many factors out of Vince's control. In further elaboration:

1. A boom period of epic proportions would need to take place

2. TNA must finally take it's place as the other dominate North American wrestling entity we all hoped it would become.

3. Quality booking/ VINCE RESPECTING THE OPINIONS OF HIS CREATIVE TEAM.

4. Quality talent (If your ass can't work, then your ass don't work ) n/h.

5. Drop this "WWE style" of wrestling mentality. If a nikkas a lucha--let'em work. If a nikka's a stiff nikka from Japan--Let'em work. If a nikka's the second coming of Dean Malenko--Let'em work. Stop subjecting us to the five moves of doom!

Please, proceed to destroy my logic, bruhs. Forgive them, BK. They know not what they do.