Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: This Week In GIFs

TNA again insults its fans on latest episode of Impact Wrestling

Bobby Roode unwittingly mimes TNA wrestling fans everywhere by screaming in frustration during his match against Jeff Hardy.

In covering the results of the TNA Genesis pay-per-view (PPV) event that took place this past Sun., Jan. 8, 2012, in Orlando, the same tired theme showed itself once again. The number two wrestling promotion in the U.S. insulted its fans by asking them to pay for an event that featured a smoz finish for nearly every match on the card.

Then, to make matters worse, the company released YouTube footage of the main event of that PPV, Jeff Hardy vs. Bobby Roode, showing exactly how it all played out and further insulting its fanbase that actually bothered to pay for the show, not that there are many who do so anymore.

To cap it all off, TNA aired its taped episode of Impact Wrestling last night and essentially threw salt in the wounds they created just a few nights prior.

The show was centered around a pair of rematches from the PPV, Kurt Angle vs. James Storm and Jeff Hardy vs. Bobby Roode. At Genesis, Angle defeated Storm and Roode retained his title over Hardy with a cheap disqualification loss after he straight up nut checked the referee.

So instead of building to proper rematches, TNA shot the return angles for the very next show. Storm went 16 or so minutes with Angle and defeated him clean to become the next contender to the heavyweight championship. Again, it boggles the mind that this happened on free TV instead of the show that fans are supposed to pay for. Roode retained his title in a weird non-finish finish in the main event, with Bully Ray coming out to bump the ref and Hardy's music just randomly playing to signify the end of the match. It was set up earlier in the night that the match would be no disqualification so Roode couldn't just get himself disqualified to retain his belt. Any pro wrestling fan who has watched TNA for more than two weeks knew this was just a way to open the door for yet another run-in and lack of a finish.

The funny thing about the entire ordeal is that Roode and Hardy actually had a very good match on Impact but fell mostly flat on the PPV. It's as though everyone in the company is being told to hold back on pay shows and really bring it on free TV.

You pay for the goods on PPV and you're given a content barely worthy of free TV. They then give you no reason to tune into the weekly Impact show then when you do tune in, you're given the best they have which, ultimately, really isn't that great.

TNA, ladies and gentlemen.

Comment 23 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Around SB Nation

Comments

Display:

As much as a I want legit competition for the WWE, this is bullshit at its finest. Sheeh TNA Shoots foot again, news at 11.

I've got something to say; it better to burn out than to fade away!!!
I'm still waiting for my CM Punk WWE Ice Cream Bar.
Go Chargers (oh yeah I said that)
X Box Gamertag: OneRabidDingo
It would lead me to believe that @bisping must have pissed off @danawhite something fierce. RT @drjamezkelske: @danhendo just out of curiosity, if the #ufc comes to you and asks you to fight Bisping again how do you respond?" -Dan Henderson
You're an idiot.
Follow @SBNLukeThomas
by Luke Thomas on Jan 5, 2012 1:40 PM PST up reply actions

by dandeman on Jan 13, 2012 7:06 PM EST reply actions  

So let me get this straight...

TNA can’t get their heads out of their own asses regarding proper builds and finishes.

Ring of Honor can’t get their heads out of their own asses regarding headshot chair attacks.

WWE can’t get their heads out of their own asses regarding heel PBP commentators, erratic booking, and sabotaging pushes.

…God, I hope we don’t start hearing bad news about Chikara or Dragon Gate US, or else pro wrestling in the US is screwed.

Time to spread a little chaos...

by Shadowbird on Jan 13, 2012 10:50 PM EST reply actions  

If the people who bought the PPV want to send in their grievances, they can email TNA at:

lol@TNAfans.com

by StrongStyle81 on Jan 13, 2012 11:07 PM EST reply actions  

Continuing the joke...

Replies will be sent out on the 15th of HAYOUFOOLS!

Time to spread a little chaos...

by Shadowbird on Jan 13, 2012 11:37 PM EST up reply actions  

You have to give a little

I understand the gist of this post but the idea that you can never show good matches in free tv is absurd. I know ppv is what the shows should build towards but you have to give people something. I’m not buying all of the shows and I know there’s no one else that is either short of the wealthy. The idea that wwe can say that it’s such a rarity that a title belt is defended on tv is such a joke. I for one applaud Tna for this type of booking. Thank you for giving me something and breaking this idiotic unwritten rule.

by mdf1008 on Jan 14, 2012 6:26 AM EST via mobile reply actions  

I understand the gist of this post but the idea that you can never show good matches in free tv is absurd.

This isn’t what people are complaining about at all.

People hate TNA PPV’s not because they give great matches on free TV, but because the matches TNA airs on free TV completely invalidate the events of the PPV’s, the matches shown on the PPV’s are getting to the point where they’re of a lower quality than the TV, and if all the important matches and booking moments are aired on free TV, there’s no reason to give TNA money for their PPV’s.

Wrestling promotions don’t make that much money from ratings because the sponsors aren’t willing to shell out money for a product they believe has a demographic made up mostly of poor people, and TNA doesn’t get good enough ratings to make much money off TV alone. Not to mention that PPV’s have an overhead cost which TNA has to make up or they’ll automatically lose money, and they can’t just stop airing PPV’s because they’re contractually obligated to keep showing them by the cable companies they’ve signed with.

It’s retarded and indefensible to do this, though “this” can apply to just about every decision TNA has made for almost every moment of its existence.

by *Asterisk* on Jan 14, 2012 7:24 AM EST up reply actions  

Of course

What a shock that you’d be the one to reply and tell me I’m completely off base. I like how you quote me but completely neglect to see that I said I understand what geno was getting at in terms of the ppv results and tv booking. It’s ass backwards what Tna is doing, yes. My point is that I think it’s insane that the prevailing opinion at wwe is that any match that is even remotely special either isn’t on tv or comes with a big disclaimer about how lucky we poor masses are to see someone like Punk defend the belt on Raw. The idea that absolutely nothing of relevance happens outside of a ppv makes wrestling truly unique in terms of how they structure their business. There’s no other tv series or sport that behaves that way. And I for one don’t agree with it.

by mdf1008 on Jan 14, 2012 12:02 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

My point is that I think it’s insane that the prevailing opinion at wwe is that any match that is even remotely special either isn’t on tv or comes with a big disclaimer about how lucky we poor masses are to see someone like Punk defend the belt on Raw.

They come with a disclaimer in order to promote that you should watch that match when it airs because its a big deal, which is what TNA should be doing. The problem is, at this point, WWE doesn’t have any big matches left except Rocky vs. Cena, Undertaker vs. Cena, and Lesnar vs. Cena or Triple H, so nothing feels important.

There’s no other tv series or sport that behaves that way. And I for one don’t agree with it.

This isn’t true at all. Any sport that is seen as low brow by the cable companies always gets worse advertisers, and thus has to use PPV’s to generate any real revenue. Boxing and MMA are seen in a similar boat as pro wrestling, and thus, have to do the same thing WWE and TNA should be doing.

by *Asterisk* on Jan 14, 2012 4:21 PM EST up reply actions  

Really

I hate to break it to you, but you’re not explaining anything to me that I didn’t already know. I am aware of the point behind a disclaimer and a promo for an upcoming match. Watch this because it’s special. I get it. What I’m driving at here, as I explain it for the third time, and keep in mind this is just my opinion, is that I think it’s lame, sad, or disappointing that the business has evolved to the point where “free tv” is almost a derogatory term. I’d like to think that I could see something on “free tv” that’s good or meaningful and not reserved solely for the ppvs. Seeing as there’s a ppv from each company once a month, this is completely wishful thinking. In the 80s, when there weren’t ppvs every month, you could see meaningful matches. So you could say I’m waxing nostalgic for days gone by and how the business was run.

As for boxing and mma, I think you’re way off here. First, wrestling has their main stars on every week. You don’t see Mayweather on a weekly show, and unless you follow the sport pretty religiously, I don’t think the majority of names in the sport are recognizable. It shifted to ppv and pay channels decades ago and is basically an exclusive sport for those willing to pay. Outside of Ultimate Fighter, mma stars are rarely on either. Boxing and Mma when shown are, basically, regional and in undesirable time slots. Wrestling is on during prime time, and, as we’re made aware on a nearly weekly basis, is the longest running episodic show. There is no other “episodic” series where you watch week after week only to have to pay to see the resolution.

by mdf1008 on Jan 14, 2012 5:32 PM EST up reply actions  

What I’m driving at here, as I explain it for the third time, and keep in mind this is just my opinion, is that I think it’s lame, sad, or disappointing that the business has evolved to the point where "free tv" is almost a derogatory term.

There was never a point where the wrestling business evolved to the point where the term “free TV” was a derogatory term, it’s always been a derogatory term. Back in the days before PPV, big matches were almost never shown on TV because the promoters knew if the fans had already seen the huge match they were promoting on free TV instead of buying tickets to see it, they’d lose out on a huge profit because advertisers even back then didn’t give them much syndication money.

Yes, there were meaningful matches that were shown on occasion on “free TV” once cable came around, but they were always once a month deals, and required people to purchase cable boxes to see them, which, at the time, were something much fewer people had, so the market wouldn’t become over saturated. It won’t ever work that way anymore, because cable is something a lot more people have, and rather than just having to run a prime time show once a month plus a PPV or three, WWE and TNA are running multiple hours of primetime TV a month and 12 PPV’s a year.

You’re being nostalgic for something that never existed.

by *Asterisk* on Jan 14, 2012 8:40 PM EST up reply actions  

I truely and honestly hate to say this

But ** is right on this one. For a major wrestling promotion to survive, they must build towards the PPV’s. That is where the money comes from. By giving away matches, you hurt your own product. It’s like Nike giving away Air Jordan’s but charging 100 bucks for Scalabrine’s sneaker. On top of aaaalllll of that, TNA basically gave its fans the middle finger by showing the exact match that they paid for on free tv, but a better match. If you paid money for a dinner, and it was crap, and then the restaurant gave away a five course meal to the people who walked in behind you, you would be pissed. What TNA is doing is dumb on multiple levels. You are supposed to build to the PPV, and reward the fans that paid for it. They are doing the exact opposite. Yes, it’s an antiquated business model, but it is what wrestling is built on. That’s the entire point of the WWE Network, to change the landscape. Maybe someday we can dump the entire PPV idea someday, but for now if you are not treating it as the best you have to offer you are shooting yourself in the foot.

So go forth, my brethren, and proceed to mark the f*ck out

by C. J. Bradford on Jan 14, 2012 9:32 PM EST up reply actions  

There’s no shame in agreeing with Asterisk. He is a passionate fan with a well-informed view on things. I agree with a lot of the things he says.

by Kanenite on Jan 14, 2012 10:29 PM EST up reply actions  

You’re lucky, because lord knows he’d tell you why your opinion is wrong should you chose to disagree with him.

by mdf1008 on Jan 14, 2012 10:36 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

That’s fine by me. I welcome alternate perspectives. I thought this past week of Raw was mostly terrible even though that opinion is largely being rejected around here. Geno even gave the show an “A” grade which I have a hard time understanding. I don’t see it and I haven’t seen a very convincing argument for that yet, but I do enjoy seeing alternate opinions especially when they are well-supported with some kind of objectivity. If everybody shared the same opinion as I do on things here I’d probably get bored of this place.

And I don’t agree with Asterisk on everything he says, but for the most part I find that he can back up his opinions pretty well so I respect his opinion on things. If he wants to call me out on something I say that’s fine, maybe he will provide me with an alternate view on things that I have yet to consider or remind me of something that I forgot about.

As long as people can stay away from the point of name-calling and other such bitterness, I enjoy engaging in conversations with passionate fans.

by Kanenite on Jan 14, 2012 10:46 PM EST up reply actions  

There is a HUGE difference between being passionate...

…and being an outright know-it-all jackass.

A passionate fan knows when to stop and when to agree to disagree with someone and doesn’t browbeat them with “facts”.

by TheAngryApe on Jan 15, 2012 3:47 PM EST up reply actions  

I feel the same away
  • is one few poster who can get a good lively discussion going with out out right trolling

He knows the guy with the bandage on his ass is going no were. Were you going fucking no were

by Elstriko on Jan 15, 2012 1:42 AM EST via Android app up reply actions  

Yes, CJ, I agree

I get it. Tna is giving away something for free that people, however few they may be, paid good money for. And they did it twice, if you consider the You Tube video another give away, which I don’t because it seems that sites like this provide the same sort of information for free in real time as the ppv is happening. There’s no one in the world who is really into wrestling that would wait until the following episode of Raw or Impact to find out the results of the ppv, and if there are, they are few and far between. So to throw a dig at Tna for that seems a stretch.

As I’ve been trying to get through to Asterisk, there isn’t another sport that acts in the manner. Do you see the Nfl charging for the Super Bowl or Mlb charging for the World Series? You also don’t see something that’s self described as an “episodic” show charging for the finales or pay off episodes. It’s just insane to think that you can’t expect to see anything of ppv quality on a weekly episode of Raw or Impact because they have to save that for the ppv. I’m not suggesting the whole show be ppv quality, but the main events from time to time should be ppv quality, belts should be defended and we should see something that gives the paying audience their moneys worth.

by mdf1008 on Jan 14, 2012 10:34 PM EST up reply actions  

It's based off of an old business model, yeah

But that’s cause they can’t get the same deal the NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL etc get. They bring in millions for their games. And as for episodic television, they don’t have the same cost of operations. How much money are guys like Trips, Taker, Cena and Orton bringing in? How much money does it cost to go coast to coast every 3-5 months? They absolutely need to bring in money through PPV’s.

As for your point about occasionally having PPV quality main events, yeah that makes sense. But it’s such a thin line to walk. You can go TNA, where free tv actually cannibalises their PPV’s. Or WCW, where things would be convoluted, overbooked, and hotshot to increases ratings at the expense of long term stories. Or WWE, where they put on such great shows that their audience has become spoiled and don’t appreciate the show when it’s not top quality.

But your point about not wanting free tv to build up to the PPV is naive. That’s exactly what it’s for. That’s what it always existed for. Free tv has always existed to build up for the PPV, because the PPV makes money. Again, hopefully someday WWE can move past this model. But for its entire existence it has been like this.

So go forth, my brethren, and proceed to mark the f*ck out

by C. J. Bradford on Jan 15, 2012 12:09 AM EST up reply actions  

If you’d bother to keep reading, you’d see that I acknowledge that the pre-ppv dominated mode of business is antiquated and not likely to ever return.

If you bothered to keep reading, you’d find that during the pre-PPV era of wrestling, free TV had even less important matches shown on it than at any point in the PPV era because advertising executives will never give good amounts of money to a TV show they perceive as having a lower economic demographic than what they would draw with Law & Order reruns.

Fine, my memory is hazy in terms of seeing main event matches on a weekly basis on Prime Time or Wcw Saturday Night, but I don’t recall ever thinking that I was missing out on something because they saved all of the good stuff for ppv. That’s just how I remember the wrestling of my youth.

That’s because you were a kid, and kid’s always accept things at face value without feeling like they’re missing out on something as long as movement is occurring in front of them. I guarantee that not a single important wrestler ever appeared on Prime Time or Saturday Night in any form other than for a pre-taped promo, and in the highly unlikely event that anybody important did appear on those shows, it was for the purposes of squashing a jobber.

Now the ppvs are crammed down your throat and promoted endlessly and at the expense of providing the paying audience, the very ones who should have felt ripped off to the point of rioting over the atrocious show on Monday Night, with anything the even resembles a high quality match.

The only time TV wrestling was at a higher quality than it is today was during the peak years of the Monday Night Wars, and that only occurred because the guys who were in the midcard at the time were at a ridiculously high level, and Vince McMahon had yet to start up the practice of cutting to commercial during the heat segments of the matches.

TNA, in general, has mostly had very high quality wrestling on for free at every point, but the matches are promoted so horribly and run into the ground so often that no one cares when two big names face, and the PPV results are often negated the next night or week by the same such matches.

Again, my overall point is that, regardless of historical accuracy and economic necessity, there isn’t one series or sport that builds up weekly episodes to a ppv conclusion like wrestling.

Boxing and MMA do exactly this. Both are seen as low class, and thus are given table scraps by advertizing companies, so they air promotional shows and lesser fights on free TV, and then air the fights with Pacquiao and Overeem on PPV.

Maybe when you leave the podium and concluded your history lessons, you could at least concede that much.

Considering that it makes no sense to say that no other medium uses wrestling’s format when boxing and MMA do use just that formula, no, I won’t concede.

by *Asterisk* on Jan 15, 2012 2:28 AM EST up reply actions  

at this point I watch TNA out of habit

I DVR it every week and casually watch it hoping to see something worthwhile

When Mike Ditka calculates pi it's decimal representation ends.

by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Jan 14, 2012 2:31 PM EST via iPhone app reply actions  

Still better wrestling than WWE...

and I’d rather get the same match twice as opposed to getting people talking all night on WWE and making jokes that only the pre-pubscent teens that populate the crowd / TV network care about.

Conewalker
www.lordyuanshu.com

by WolvesDenHoops on Jan 16, 2012 7:37 PM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

"Behind you there may be one, or there may be many, waiting to stick a knife in your back. But you don't have to worry about me ... I'll shoot you right between the eyes." -- Kevin Nash

The General

Solidsnake_small Geno Mrosko

Editors

Small Keith Harris

Bane2_small Jesse Holland

File1684_small Sergio Hernandez