The Cutting Edge 01/08/08

rovert

Bubs101 wrote: »

You said you read them every week and new them. i don't read them every week so I assumed that you were right.

Why did you phrase this statement this way then?

Bubs101 wrote: »

Also, don't think you could be any more wrong about ratings.

It is pretty much you in a nutshell. You make an overstated statement that no one including yourself probably knows why. Then never elaborate on it or back it up.

Bubs101 wrote: »

I like you and think you bring something to the board but you are absolutely infuriating to argue with sometimes. People don't have to reply to every comment of yours and some of your posts along the gist of "reply to post 39" come off really badly.

It maybe infuriating as you seemed to hardly read my posts. I felt the need to point this fact out hence "reply to post 39." Also stop over using hyperbole and making statements have no factual basis or are easily disproval.

I don’t expect people to reply to everyone of my comments, just put some consideration into what they do.

I’ve said similar things to you in the past and I don’t feel like I’m being unfair to you here.

D-FENS

validreasoning! wrote: »

I think i must be the only one here that was completely underwhelmed by that promo after the buildup everyone here gave it. I thought Jericho's promo on RAW absolutely destroyed.

Had Foley not pulled a very similar promo to Terry Funk two years ago, i would have found it amazing. But he did, and so I didn't.

VR!

Y2J's was good,but in fairness, how many times have we heard the "I've put him on the shelf for good" speech before too?

ShawnRaven

D-FENS wrote: »

Y2J's was good,but in fairness, how many times have we heard the "I've put him on the shelf for good" speech before too?

True, although it's always about the one guy. But yeah, it's just WWE repeating itself yet again for Vince's "amnesiac audience".

Three things for me to fast forward through in WWE now, Undertakers boring entrance and WWE's repeated promos, and "from the vault" matches.

VR!

D-FENS

validreasoning! wrote: »

True, although it's always about the one guy. But yeah, it's just WWE repeating itself yet again for Vince's "amnesiac audience".

Three things for me to fast forward through in WWE now, Undertakers boring entrance and WWE's repeated promos, and "from the vault" matches.

VR!

If one of the repeats is Timmy White killing himself because of the effect HITC had on him, i'll be happy, that was hilarious...

ShawnRaven

D-FENS wrote: »

If one of the repeats is Timmy White killing himself because of the effect HITC had on him, i'll be happy, that was hilarious...

Hah, a new suicide each week. When WWE knew how to be funny eh?
"Hang in there, Tim!"

VR!

rovert

validreasoning! wrote: »

True, although it's always about the one guy. But yeah, it's just WWE repeating itself yet again for Vince's "amnesiac audience".

Wrestling TV shows are just ads for the PPVs, VR. Get over it.

Reganio 2

Yes wrestling shows are just to sell you on the PPV's but surly they would achive more by not repeating the same storyline every 3 months,
Batista/Cena = MVP/Hardy
Michaels/Jericho = Every other time they have said it.

rovert

Reganio 2 wrote: »

Yes wrestling shows are just to sell you on the PPV's but surly they would achive more by not repeating the same storyline every 3 months,
Batista/Cena = MVP/Hardy
Michaels/Jericho = Every other time they have said it.

There are very few distinctly different storylines (that work) when you boil it all down. Neither of the storylines are carbon copies in fairness.

D-FENS

rovert wrote: »

There are very few distinctly different storylines (that work) when you boil it all down. Neither of the storylines are carbon copies in fairness.

The Batista/Cena thing has been done numerous times before, and not just with Hardy/MVP - Cena done it with HBK last year, very boring and repetitive.

rovert

D-FENS wrote: »

The Batista/Cena thing has been done numerous times before, and not just with Hardy/MVP - Cena done it with HBK last year, very boring and repetitive.

You own opinion but again there very few unique storylines.

Reganio 2

No its fact just ask anyone who watches wrestling and they will say its been done to death and don't go posting ratings, I never believed in any of that. I only watch WWE cause of its ease to watch I would watch TNA if it wasn't **** and on at a horrible horrible time. Most people watch WWE for lack of options not cause its amazing unfortunatly.

rovert

Reganio 2 wrote: »

No its fact just ask anyone who watches wrestling and they will say its been done to death and don't go posting ratings.

So according to you a sample size of a dozen people > a couple million of people. Okey dokey :rolleyes:

Reganio 2 wrote: »

I never believed in any of that.

Beyond retarded.

Please tell me why.

Reganio 2 wrote: »

I only watch WWE cause of its ease to watch I would watch TNA if it wasn't **** and on at a horrible horrible time. Most people watch WWE for lack of options not cause its amazing unfortunatly.

You do know WWE dont consider TNA competition while they consider EVERY other form of entertainment (TV, Cinema, Computer Games, Concerts) as competition, these are what WWE considers as options. TNA simply doesnt take ratings or market share from them.

rovert

Oh yeah by the way PPV buyrates are up this year so people must do actually like what they are watching and are willing to pay for it. But probably according to you, Reganio 2 this doesnt indicate anything.

rovert

This promo did really ****ing well in the ratings the show gained 892,000 people in that final quarter hour.

Bubs101

Just out of interest Rovert, I heard the other day that ECW ratings are up (could have been on the Bryan and Vinny show you posted but I can't remember. Thanks btw) but how much are they up and is it all down to Hardy or is Bourne having an effect?

rovert

Bubs101 wrote: »

Just out of interest Rovert, I heard the other day that ECW ratings are up (could have been on the Bryan and Vinny show you posted but I can't remember. Thanks btw) but how much are they up and is it all down to Hardy or is Bourne having an effect?

No one in the industry really cares about segment breakdown (1/4 hours) as ECW is so low on the totem pole. Sometimes it is published some times not. But off the top of my head Matt Hardy & HOrnswoggle a drew a large audience of kids to the brand on their arrival and Evan's segments do very well for someone who is so new and not a star.

Fozzy

Bubs101 wrote: »

Just out of interest Rovert, I heard the other day that ECW ratings are up (could have been on the Bryan and Vinny show you posted but I can't remember. Thanks btw) but how much are they up and is it all down to Hardy or is Bourne having an effect?

They're up from 1.0s and 1.1s to 1.4s and 1.5s. I'd say it's down to Hardy and Hornswoggle. There wasn't really a draw for the kids on ECW before and I'd say that Hornswoggle has a lot of them watching now. They're putting the show on an hour earlier now too, from next week, that could help with the younger audience

rovert

I did some digging:

Credit Wrestling Observer

As far as what is causing the increase in ECW ratings in recent weeks, Kids under 11 are up 46% (Hornswoggle and Matt Hardy) and Male teens up 58% (hard one to peg as to why). Everything else is up with Males, although women are down between 12 and 34. The show did a 1.0 in Males 18-34 and 1.2 in Males 35-49, but a whopping 1.9 among teenage males.

In the segment-by-segment, Bourne vs. James Curtis gained 204,000 viewers. A bunch of backstage stuff with no wrestling lost 148,000 viewers. Miz vs. Finlay vs. Matt Hardy vs. Morrison gained 546,000 viewers, which is pretty great for ECW, peaking at 1.80. It was the highest rated match on ECW since the Monster Mash Battle Royal.

Kind of old but you get the jist and again few care about ECW's ratings relatively speaking.

rovert

Hey Bubs, your boy Kennedy is brittle isnt he:

Mr. Kennedy suffered a dislocated shoulder during a match with Shelton Benjamin on Monday night in Macon, Ga., according to JRsbarbq.com. Jim Ross noted that Kennedy is expected to be "out of action for a few weeks depending on the results of his latest MRI."

flahavaj

rovert wrote: »

I did some digging:

Credit Wrestling Observer




Kind of old but you get the jist and again few care about ECW's ratings relatively speaking.

I always said that Sydal kid was gonna be big!

Seriously though hes the reason I watch ECW every week anyway, he's just ridiculously talented. I've actually enjoyed ECW a lot the last 3/4 weeks. the 4 way main event a few weeks back was as good a TV match as I've seen this year. Miz and Morrison are criminally underrated.

Vince135792003

rovert wrote: »

Oh yeah by the way PPV buyrates are up this year

I think their net total for ppv's is marginally down this year.

They've made marginal gains in alot of the ppvs this year but this year's buy rate for 'Mania was down by more than 100k which offsets the gains they have made.

Reganio 2

rovert wrote: »

So according to you a sample size of a dozen people > a couple million of people. Okey dokey :rolleyes:

No I am saying how the hell do people know when to turn on their tv to see whoever talking to whoever. I guarantee most people turn on the last half hour because that's the main event and if they see the main event they have something to talk about

rovert wrote: »

Oh yeah by the way PPV buyrates are up this year so people must do actually like what they are watching and are willing to pay for it. But probably according to you, Reganio 2 this doesnt indicate anything.

So you are saying wrestling at the moment is good? Ok then :rolleyes:

rovert

Reganio 2 wrote: »

No I am saying how the hell do people know when to turn on their tv to see whoever talking to whoever.

So you dont believe in them because you clearly dont understand them? That is ignorance my son.

Reganio 2 wrote: »

I guarantee most people turn on the last half hour because that's the main event and if they see the main event they have something to talk about:

Erm because it is the main event you know the most important match on the show. :rolleyes: It is not a new thing it goes back decades. So it doesnt prove your point whatever it is. It is a called a TREND which ratings monitor, the increase isnt always the same you see hence ratings are used.

I thought you didnt believe in ratings, which youve yet to tell me why on level that those in the industry and/or statisticians operate on? Youve clearly no understanding of it so why do you dismiss them? If you said "I dont understand how ratings work", you would have no problems from me and I likely went out of my way to explain it for you.

Reganio 2 wrote: »

So you are saying wrestling at the moment is good? Ok then :rolleyes:

Yes it is

Vince135792003 wrote: »

I think their net total for ppv's is marginally down this year.

They've made marginal gains in alot of the ppvs this year but this year's buy rate for 'Mania was down by more than 100k which offsets the gains they have made.

Mania grossed higher. The lower buyrate was more to do with less mainstream interest from last year as Mayweather was a flop. There will be only so many wrestling fans who will buy a Wrestling no matter what is on the card.

The final numbers arent in for 08 yet

D-FENS

rovert wrote: »

You own opinion but again there very few unique storylines.

There's more options out there creatively than basically repeating a storyline from last year (Unless there turns out to be a twist this time and either Cena or Big Dave get a badly needed heel turn or something like that but this is perhaps unlikely).

And although you can't argue with ratings, i personally tune in to every show every week, therefore helping ratings, but mostly on the offchance that something good will happen and am often disappointed, and i don't think i'm alone there, so rating don't automatically mean quality tv, millions tune into the the FA Cup final, Superbowl, all Ireland and bloody Coronation Street too, does'nt stop them often being crap:)

And to be honest Rovert, you clearly know your stuff, but using phrases like "beyond retarded" does'nt help your cause

rovert

D-FENS wrote: »

There's more options out there creatively than basically repeating a storyline from last year (Unless there turns out to be a twist this time and either Cena or Big Dave get a badly needed heel turn or something like that but this is perhaps unlikely).

They aren’t repeating the storyline verbatim thought the dynamic is different and it is being told a different way. Can you not see that with the guessing of the direction of it, it isn’t a carbon copy of a previous storyline. There is still intrigue on your part going by your post and it the outcome isn’t completely transparent. You got to remember they do hundreads of hours of television every year across the three brands of course there is going to be repetition down the line as there is a finite amount of storylines.

D-FENS wrote: »

And although you can't argue with ratings, i personally tune in to every show every week, therefore helping ratings, but mostly on the offchance that something good will happen and am often disappointed, and i don't think i'm alone there, so rating don't automatically mean quality tv, millions tune into the the FA Cup final, Superbowl, all Ireland and bloody Coronation Street too, does'nt stop them often being crap:))

You are confusing qualitative and quantities information. It is quantitive data which matters to WWE as it is a Television and PPV business. They’ve made you watch their television regardless of how you feel about it. Wrestling has always been a con business, it is all about getting people through the door so to speak. Promising the earth but only delivering just enough to get you back.

D-FENS wrote: »

And to be honest Rovert, you clearly know your stuff, but using phrases like "beyond retarded" does'nt help your cause

But how I applied was in fact true as the poster’s thinking was stunted as I’ve already posted in detail.

Tricity Bendix

So they took the eye candy and the emo off ECW, introduced a midget and a large sweaty new champ, and the amount of teen males watching the show significantly increased? Whats wrong with kids today?

rovert

b.ie curious wrote: »

So they took the eye candy and the emo off ECW, introduced a midget and a large sweaty new champ, and the amount of teen males watching the show significantly increased? Whats wrong with kids today?

They really hate Chavo Guererro.

D-FENS

rovert wrote: »

"You are confusing qualitative and quantities information. It is quantitive data which matters to WWE as it is a Television and PPV business. They’ve made you watch their television regardless of how you feel about it. Wrestling has always been a con business, it is all about getting people through the door so to speak. Promising the earth but only delivering just enough to get you back."

I'm not confused at all, i'm aware of what matters to WWE and i'm sure they're quite content at the moment, but we're discussing on here what matters to us the fans, and saying we should be happy with average angles because WWE is happy, or because it's always been that way (Even though it has'nt - e.g. Attitude era) is wrong. I'm all for being kept guessing, and as i've said before i'm used to being disappointed, but WWE should keep a certain standard regardless of wheither someone like Ted Turner is breathing down their neck or not, and we should'nt have to be content when they don't. And recycling angles like the "reluctant tag partners" one is fine, but should be used to build mid level guys, people like Batista and Cena don't benefit in my view, there's better options out there for guys like them.



"But how I applied was in fact true as the poster’s thinking was stunted as I’ve already posted in detail"

Then why not just say - "your thinking is stunted sir"
Does'nt matter if what you say is true or not, or how many dictionarys you swallowed, there's no excuse for bad manners...

rovert

D-FENS wrote: »

I'm not confused at all, i'm aware of what matters to WWE and i'm sure they're quite content at the moment, but we're discussing on here what matters to us the fans, and saying we should be happy with average angles because WWE is happy, or because it's always been that way (Even though it has'nt - e.g. Attitude era) is wrong. I'm all for being kept guessing, and as i've said before i'm used to being disappointed, but WWE should keep a certain standard regardless of wheither someone like Ted Turner is breathing down their neck or not, and we should'nt have to be content when they don't.

The us you refer to a relatively small group of fans who make up an audience. This small core group will always watch (and bitch about) the product regardless how bad and/or unpopular it is.

The angles they currently have can not be definitively described as average. Not creatively or commercially.

If you are looking back at the Attitude era you need to remember you were younger and more naïve when it came to Wrestling. I’m not say this to put myself over but during 1997-9 after watching Raw myself and best friend could easily predict the formula of what matches there would be next week and where most storylines were going. A lot of the undercard fueds were ****e and don’t get me started on match quality. I dare you to rewatch some of that with new eyes today. People always say the Wrestling they grew up with was the best. Hmmm, I wonder maybe it is because a lot of it is directed at children.

D-FENS wrote: »

And recycling angles like the "reluctant tag partners" one is fine, but should be used to build mid level guys, people like Batista and Cena don't benefit in my view, there's better options out there for guys like them.

You’ve yet to post the other options (that work or work better than the current one btw) they could use.

D-FENS wrote: »

Then why not just say - "your thinking is stunted sir"
Does'nt matter if what you say is true or not, or how many dictionarys you swallowed, there's no excuse for bad manners... .

It wasn’t bad manners I’m speaking to him and you on a respectful level. Id rather not patronise people.

DRakE

b.ie curious wrote: »

introduced a midget and a large sweaty new champ

RACISM OMGGFH

rovert

DRakE wrote: »

RACISM OMGGFH

He has been called and nicknamed worse.

Tricity Bendix

DRakE wrote: »

RACISM OMGGFH

Actually, my post was somewhat offensive. What is the accepted term for short people these days?

rovert

b.ie curious wrote: »

Actually, my post was somewhat offensive. What is the accepted term for short people these days?

Daniel


(runs and hides)

DRakE

rovert wrote: »

He has been called and nicknamed worse.

Joke :rolleyes:

D-FENS

“The us you refer to a relatively small group of fans who make up an audience. This small core group will always watch (and bitch about) the product regardless how bad and/or unpopular it is.
The angles they currently have can not be definitively described as average. Not creatively or commercially”

Firstly, I’m only discussing the current Cena angle, I’m not dissing the whole WWE product really and don’t believe in coming on here to do so, I don’t think the whole product needs changing and if the day ever came that I did, I would turn off, but at present I’m quite happy with the Edge show over on SM. But the deal on Raw with Cena and Batista is average and boring at the moment, but here's hoping it picks up before their match.

“If you are looking back at the Attitude era you need to remember you were younger and more naïve when it came to Wrestling. I’m not say this to put myself over but during 1997-9 after watching Raw myself and best friend could easily predict the formula of what matches there would be next week and where most storylines were going. A lot of the undercard feuds were ****e and don’t get me started on match quality. I dare you to rewatch some of that with new eyes today. People always say the Wrestling they grew up with was the best. Hmmm, I wonder maybe it is because a lot of it is directed at children.”

I may have been younger during the attitude era, but I wasn’t a child or naïve (If you’d said watch the Hogan era again and see if it’s the same then yeah I’d agree, everything seems better when you’re a kid), but I think you are the one in a minority if you think modern day WWE is better than the attitude era, the undercard quality may be better now, but the main event was much better then. And most fans with half a brain could predict a lot of what was coming next then, but I rather tune in knowing I was going to be entertained than tune in hope I will be. (Even though as I admit, I do and will continue to)

"You’ve yet to post the other options (that work or work better than the current one btw) they could use. "

Didn’t realise it was a creative writing class as well, but having them lose that title match and turn on each other there and then would have been better than them winning the belts, or having Batista turn heel, side with “Priceless” and maybe a returning Orton at some point to fulfil his suggestion to form a new Evolution, to then feud with “TCT” (that name is another thing that’s crap!).Or have them constantly showing respect for each other, almost reluctant to fight, and have Adamle intervene and put them in matches / situations that make them clash add spice to their match at SS (And help get Admale over as a heel GM as opposed to a What the f*ck GM)

rovert

DRakE wrote: »

Joke :rolleyes:

REALLY?

Reganio 2

rovert wrote: »

So you dont believe in them because you clearly dont understand them? That is ignorance my son.

And what about people posting their OPINION'S and you beating them down. That is ignorance my son.

rovert wrote: »

Erm because it is the main event you know the most important match on the show. :rolleyes: It is not a new thing it goes back decades. So it doesnt prove your point whatever it is. It is a called a TREND which ratings monitor, the increase isnt always the same you see hence ratings are used.

So if they throwed Great Khali Vs Mark Henry in as the main event it would get a higer viewer rating than the undercard, so this not prove that the ratings aare flawed in a way.

rovert wrote: »

I thought you didnt believe in ratings, which youve yet to tell me why on level that those in the industry and/or statisticians operate on? Youve clearly no understanding of it so why do you dismiss them? If you said "I dont understand how ratings work", you would have no problems from me and I likely went out of my way to explain it for you.

Your right I don't understand how ratings work. But I don't know what matches come up at certain times on a wrestling show so how can I tune in to watch one match and not another.

rovert wrote: »

It wasn’t bad manners I’m speaking to him and you on a respectful level. Id rather not patronise people.

Wait hang on, I am guessing you are 12 so when you have them you would speak to your kids like that?

rovert

Reganio 2 wrote: »

And what about people posting their OPINION'S and you beating them down. That is ignorance my son.

No it isn’t, you opinion wasn’t a fully formed one and not derived from a reasonable amount of understanding about the subject. You revert to type here as you fail to fully grasp the concept. As I actually did really to your post on a pretty much point by point basis, explaining flaws in your opinion. I didnt ignore anything.

Reganio 2 wrote: »

So if they throwed Great Khali Vs Mark Henry in as the main event it would get a higer viewer rating than the undercard, so this not prove that the ratings aare flawed in a way.

Did you actually read the last line of my post relating to this, ratings are measure both relative and standalone ? Anyway the question you asked is not necessarily true as TNA has found out recently, viewer habits are only one element that goes into the make up of it. Eddie & Rey used to draw the best ratings while often being on the middle of Smackdown. I really don’t see how ratings can be flawed going by what you posted.

Reganio 2 wrote: »

Your right I don't understand how ratings work. But I don't know what matches come up at certain times on a wrestling show so how can I tune in to watch one match and not another.

At least you admitted you don’t which begs the question why did you say you don’t believe in ratings?

There is many reasons why they are only broken down into 15 minutes segments and not smaller. Such as what you more or less pointed out. Matches and segments are advertised at the end of each segment leading into the next and future segments.

People know that the main things happen at beginning of the 1st and 2nd hour (when other shows are finishing up and people are flicking around etc) & along with main event (which in fact over spills in the top of the 3rd hour.) The gains in these segements are never exactly the same or can be banked on.

Reganio 2 wrote: »

Wait hang on, I am guessing you are 12 so when you have them you would speak to your kids like that?

If you can’t get you head around statistics and trend analysis and when Im "12" what does that say about you?

Your kids better be good at maths as you’ll be very little help by the sound of it.

Fozzy

Let's keep it civil please

Another point about the main event ratings is that if there's a crap main event and a load of people have just switched on for the main event, they'll switch back off again when they see what it is. Then they won't be counted in the ratings

rovert's right with what he's saying about ratings