Yeah, I know... nice title for a thread but I figured it may be a good time for to start a nostalgia discussion. Also, I know it has the ECW logo for the thread avatar but I promise it'll be mentioned too.
Twenty years ago they heyday of the AWA was coming to a close as the WWE(F) suffocated Vern Gange out business. At that time what did it mean for the wrestling industry?
Ten years ago we saw the collapse of ECW in early 2001 & then about a month or so later the demise of WCW. What effects did it have?
Today, the WWE still exists with two brands but right now seems to be operating mainly as one with RAW Supershow also it's mid card isn't all that healthy.
TNA ( IMPACT Wrestling) Has been around quite a while now but seem to continue hitting stalling points.
ROH was the phoenix that rose from the ashes of original ECW promotional radius & now has national TV time & internet PPV.
Where is wrestling, ugh sports entertainment, going? Opinions & thoughts?
Twenty years ago they heyday of the AWA was coming to a close as the WWE(F) suffocated Vern Gange out business. At that time what did it mean for the wrestling industry?
AWA actually died summer of '90 when the Team Challenge Series concluded. Company officially folded in early '91, but the end of the TCS was the end of the AWA. Actually, it didn't mean much for the wrestling industry because the company was pretty much dead after Lawler returned the AWA belt following his dispute with Verne in early '89, and that was the AWA's last gasp. In a way it actually helped wrestling that the AWA and World Class folded, because it provided Global Wrestling the time slot on ESPN. That imploded quickly, but it provided a brief potential spark.
I don't think it was WWF putting Verne Gagne out of business, it was Verne Gagne who put himself out of business. It's also kind of weird that WCW even in it's last weeks was drawing more then double what Impact draws today on Spike.
When I was a kid before cable TV, there was nothing like watching the saturday afternoon WWWF show, you would get nothing but squash matches or one interesting match with someone like Rick McGraw, Jose Gonzalez, or SD Jones. The cheap interviews with Vince McMahon for the local house shows. And always the same fat guy in the front row on the TV tapings, which I believe took place in Pennyslvania. When there was interaction between the heel and good guy, the heel would always give the hero a beat down on TV, and you had to go to the house shows to watch the hero get his revenge.
When we did get cable TV when I became a young adult, of course WTBS Channel 17 wrestling was a must see. undersized rings with Solie as the announcer and always these teenage girls you could hear chanting in the background.
I don't know what the last Nitro drew, but I believe the next to last nitro drew 1.8 million viewers Vs the 1.6 viewers Impact regularly draws. It"s more viewers obviously, but not twice as much.
I think the most fun I had watching wrestling was in 1992, with WCW Saturday Night on TBS. It started at 6:05pm and ran for two hours. The jobbers were different of course, and my favorite was The Gambler. It was the first time I had seen Big Van Vader, Sting, Cactus Jack, and I had a lot of fun laying on my living room floor watching it.
Originally posted by Dexley's Midnight JoggerThe jobbers were different of course, and my favorite was The Gambler.
Dear God, yes. The Gambler was awesome. He would just walk out with a deck of cards, and casually throw one card away into the crowd at seemingly random intervals, as if this was somehow proof he gambled. I am smiling now just thinking about it.
(edited by Hogan's My Dad on 19.2.12 1631) Quiet, Or Papa Spank!
I think the most fun I had watching wrestling was in 1992, with WCW Saturday Night on TBS. It started at 6:05pm and ran for two hours. The jobbers were different of course, and my favorite was The Gambler. It was the first time I had seen Big Van Vader, Sting, Cactus Jack, and I had a lot of fun laying on my living room floor watching it.
How did we all end up on the living room floor watching wrestling?
As long as the WWE continues to rake in the dough, things will be fine. Other companies problems are partly because WWE is in a down cycle, but fend for yourself. And book a better product
ECW is (was) 2,000 maniacs from Philly and New York. That's what Vince says. Go with it
(edited by RYDER FAKIN on 19.2.12 1941) Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high
WCW had some great jobbers. State Patrol, Normal Smiley (who was so great they had to push him).
I was a total WWF Kool Aid drinking mark up until around 92. I had somehow stumbled upon the Clash Sting Vs Flair before that, but didn't put much effort into following the shows until then. Really sucks because I missed some great wrestling.
2002 was an awful time to be a fan. Even when Vince went national, you still had tons of promotions you could follow, but then it truly was a one man show. The brand extension failed at creating the illusion of competition. We can argue the merits of it giving midcard talent TV time, but Raw and Smackdown have never felt like two seperate entities.
Things look a bit better now though. WWE will at least deliver from Rumble to Mania each year. There's a chance TNA won't totally suck now that Russo's gone, and ROH has more exposure than it ever has.
Twenty years ago we also had Smoky Mountain Wrestling which graduated it's share of future E guys. I remember the Apter mags were pretty high on SMW and it was always something I wanted to (but couldn't) watch.
So in 1992 you had groups like the GWF, SMW, ECW, the USWA and non-Watts version of the UWF kicking around on TV somewhere at sometime (thank you cable!). Less than five years later almost all were gone and anyone who was any good was probably plying their trade for the two big Ws.
Right but ratings are measured differently these days back then a 2.1= 2.1 million viewers and now the ratings are measured differently so Impact Drawing a 1.1-1.2= 1.5-1.6 million viewers. That's not twice as many viewers
Originally posted by graves9Right but ratings are measured differently these days back then a 2.1= 2.1 million viewers and now the ratings are measured differently so Impact Drawing a 1.1-1.2= 1.5-1.6 million viewers. That's not twice as many viewers
That...doesn't seem quite right. 2.1 means that 2.1% of all TV equipped households were watching the show.
It still doesn't equate to a 2x number of households watching.
Sports Director Neuhoff Media Danville, IL
WDAN - K-ROCK - D-102
Announcer for Heritage Wrestling Television
Interim CEO Heritage Wrestling Coalition
Originally posted by graves9Right but ratings are measured differently these days back then a 2.1= 2.1 million viewers and now the ratings are measured differently so Impact Drawing a 1.1-1.2= 1.5-1.6 million viewers. That's not twice as many viewers
That...doesn't seem quite right. 2.1 means that 2.1% of all TV equipped households were watching the show.
It still doesn't equate to a 2x number of households watching.
for the 2001 - 2002 season, 105.5 million households were estimated to have televisions; each rating percentage point represents an estimated 1.055 million people. assuming that this season's estimated television households is about the same as last season's (and that Zap2it got the number right)
Emphasis mine.
A 2.1 rating 10 years ago would mean about 2.2 million households were watching that program. How many people were in those households? Who knows. But that is how Nielsen tracks viewership, by households.
graves9 is right on. About 10-12 years ago, it was almost a 1:1 ratio with ratings to millions of households.
(edited by Zeruel on 20.2.12 1242)
-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year -- -- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
I think that cable ratings are also more complicated than broadcast ratings. Nitro having a 2.1 rating meant that 2.1% of the households that had TNT were watching it; Impact's 1.2 rating means that 1.2% of the households that have Spike are watching it. It looks like currently TNT and Spike have the same number of subscribers, but I think cable subscriptions have grown to a significant degree in the last 10 years, so a 2.1 on TNT in 2001 is even closer in viewership to a 1.2 on Spike in 2012.
That's why ratings are still a helpful comparison, since the viewership that closes or widens the gap between Nitro and Impact is all due to factors outside of the control of Impact (population growth, growth in cable subscribers), rather than a positive sign of Impact's health and potential.
The Big Bossman raised the briefcase.
Go Pack Go! Owner of one (1) share. Let's Go Riders! Owner of one (1) share.
Originally posted by hansen9jI think that cable ratings are also more complicated than broadcast ratings. Nitro having a 2.1 rating meant that 2.1% of the households that had TNT were watching it; Impact's 1.2 rating means that 1.2% of the households that have Spike are watching it. It looks like currently TNT and Spike have the same number of subscribers, but I think cable subscriptions have grown to a significant degree in the last 10 years, so a 2.1 on TNT in 2001 is even closer in viewership to a 1.2 on Spike in 2012.
That's why ratings are still a helpful comparison, since the viewership that closes or widens the gap between Nitro and Impact is all due to factors outside of the control of Impact (population growth, growth in cable subscribers), rather than a positive sign of Impact's health and potential.
I don't believe that was the basis of the discussion between graves and Shawn. It was Shawn saying that Nitro drew twice the audience that IMPACT does now and that's been proven to be false. Toss in the fact that there are more cable channels in 2012 than 2001. I do think the ratings are flawed a bit but it is what it is.
Originally posted by TripleGIt was Shawn saying that Nitro drew twice the audience that IMPACT does now and that's been proven to be false.
It's not false as I did give stats to back up my claim. It's not 2 for 1 but the absolute lowest rated Nitro drew 2.0 million viewers. (the lowest rating). TNA draws about 1.5 million viewers... So while it's not 2 for 1, the fact is Nitro at it's worse outdraws TNA at it's best. In ratings share, it does break out to a 2 to 1 advantage. Also remember, Nitro AIRED twice, and those numbers are only for their 9pm show. Throw in the 11pm re-airing.
And also remember, Nitro actually sold tickets to their events and their PPV's even at the end, creamed Impact's PPV current ratings.
Spike would be thrilled to have the ratings of the lowest rated episode of Nitro. Now, the reason why Turner dropped wrestling is that TNT runs off a much higher budget (and much higher quality programming) then Spike, and having shows draw around 2.5 wasn't acceptable to their other programming.
Originally posted by shawnpatrickNow, the reason why Turner dropped wrestling is that TNT runs off a much higher budget (and much higher quality programming) then Spike, and having shows draw around 2.5 wasn't acceptable to their other programming.
Originally posted by TripleGIt was Shawn saying that Nitro drew twice the audience that IMPACT does now and that's been proven to be false.
It's not false as I did give stats to back up my claim. It's not 2 for 1 but the absolute lowest rated Nitro drew 2.0 million viewers. (the lowest rating). TNA draws about 1.5 million viewers... So while it's not 2 for 1, the fact is Nitro at it's worse outdraws TNA at it's best. In ratings share, it does break out to a 2 to 1 advantage. Also remember, Nitro AIRED twice, and those numbers are only for their 9pm show. Throw in the 11pm re-airing.
I would suggest you read Zeruel's post. I have acknowledged that Nitro even at the end drew better ratings than Impact does now, but not twice the ratings and for some reason you're going back to that when that was proven not to be true. Nitro did not have a replay at 11 pm anymore after like 1999. WCW had issues selling tickets at the end of the line and pretty much gave away tickets for the most part. I think one part you're discounting is how WCW was struggling to get two million viewers at the end of the boom period of wrestling, while Impact draws 1.5-1.6 in the middle of a down period in wrestling. Should Impact be drawing a better rating after all the money they spend and all the so called stars they brought in? No question. But that's a separate issue for now.