WWE RAW to go to 3 hours every week, TNA iMPACT to go live.

[BoysFan4ever]

I enjoyed RAW last night but a bit too much Big Show. Cut his opening rambling in half & he was very good. Great heel! And who said Del Rio was awful? I think he's very good.

 

[Ren]

I enjoyed RAW last night but a bit too much Big Show. Cut his opening rambling in half & he was very good. Great heel! And who said Del Rio was awful? I think he's very good.

To be fair he does seem to be getting the Cena treatment right now and it's getting really old. I like him from his days in CMLL but the Del Rio character is really starting to bore me now. They got to come up with something new for him other then losing title shots. Either give him the belt and let him hang on to it for a while with a bunch of cheap wins like the Great JBL's title run or drop him out of the picture completely and start getting creative again.

 

[BoysFan4ever]

To be fair he does seem to be getting the Cena treatment right now and it's getting really old. I like him from his days in CMLL but the Del Rio character is really starting to bore me now. They got to come up with something new for him other then losing title shots. Either give him the belt and let him hang on to it for a while with a bunch of cheap wins like the Great JBL's title run or drop him out of the picture completely and start getting creative again.

I like him but I am sure I have not been watching him as long as you have! To me he's fun to watch. I know who JBL is but I am not familiar with his title run.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Not the best example since it depends on the total number of K/Ds

Lets say the total numbers of kills and deaths might be something like 100 000 off .500 meaning you'd have to kill 100 000 straight without dying or go 2:1 on the next 200 000 either way it's going to take an awful long time to improve

If you're bad enough for long enough it's hard to fix it, trust me i know, i used to play CoD4 a lot and i suck so bad at it :laugh2:

lol.

Yes I can understand and appreciate that. I was the same way with MW2.

But the fact still remained that the lower my K/D was the easier it was to raise it, even when I was really bad and had been bad for a while.


For a long time my K/D on that was at about a .35


When I finally started to get how to play my K/D, despite having been bad for months, began to come up. Improving it from .35 to about .75 was pretty easy. It went up fairly quickly.


By the time I quit playing it, for Black Ops, my K/D has moved to .93 and let me tell you. It was a lot harder, and took a hell of a lot more time, to go from .75 to .93 then it did to go from .35 to a .75


Which was the whole point I was making from the example. The increase was much larger on the back end, because it was such a crappy K/D it didn't have anywhere else to go but up. The further up the chain I went the harder it got.



Increasing Extreme Rules....easy. You could put just about anyone on that show, as a guest appearance or a return, and the buy rate would spike upwards because it's a throw away PPV that no one cares about.


The further up the chain of PPVs you move the harder it is to increase the rate because more and more people are already watching those.


Summerslam would be harder to improve....then Survivor Series, then Royal Rumble, and finally you'd get to the big one of them all Wrestlemania.

 

[Cowboy Brian]

Did you really just say it's more impressive to bring up the ratings of a trash PPV?

You're an idiot when it comes to wrestling. It's really that simple. It's way EASIER to bring up the ratings of a crappy PPV. Why? Because it's a crappy PPV. Bring in any big time wrestler for it and guess what happens? The ratings go up.

A lot.

Why?

Because the PPV sucks. So you bring in someone like Brock the ratings go up, big.


Now to pop the ratings at a premiere PPV (Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, Survivor Series) it's much harder to increase because those PPV's are ALREAY POPULAR and ALREADY going to draw tons of people.


This is simple stuff here. My 10 year old son understands it better than you. But, as usual, you're a fan boy for a certain person and the morons on your favorite wrestling dirt sheet site agreed with you so you ran here to post something incredibly stupid and then make it worse by trying to back it up with an even more stupid line of reasoning.


The fact that you don't understand simple things like popping a rating on a crappy PPV being easier than popping the rating on THE PPV of the year is the only thing comical here.

Your being ignorant. Since you obviously don't know the WWE gross numbers I will have them later on in this post. You apparently think that because something has more brand reconiziation it makes it more impressive to increase, even though in actuality that is absolutely wrong since more people are on the fence about buying Suvivor Series than Extreme Rules. It is much more impressive to say "Hey look at this ppv that has been losing 10-15% of its buys every year and seeing it increase by 17% rather than the ppv that has declined at 2-3% a year and then saw a 14% rise." but you just don't understand that. I don't know why, your usually quite reasonable.

Your reasoning is ridiculous - I have the numbers to back it up, proved them 3x. Just like one of the two major political parties your sounding ridiculous now. Rock has made 3 big appearances with amazing buildups and every single one has been statistically defeated by Brocks terrible build up and rushed match vs Cena. I guess you just don't like Brock but to deny he is the bigger draw is ignorance.



Lets say your big ppv = harder to draw theory was accurate. Then lets look at gross numbers rather than percentages shall we? I am sure it proves my point once more.


Extreme Rules saw 251,000 buys worldwide last month. An increase of 35000

WWE Survivor Series 2011 drew 280,000 buys. An increase of 36000.

So in GROSS numbers Rock drew 1000 more than Brock and he was on a far bigger ppv, so using your own argument Brocks feat was far more impressive. Back to the percentages which is the proper way to analyze the numbers - There was only a 29000 buy difference between the two events, far from the extravagant number you probably assumed, surely proving your point false.


Brock is the bigger draw. Rocks return match after 7 years increased buys 36000/280000, Brocks 35000/251000. Numbers don't lie, you can't ***** the numbers to make the Rock seem more impressive. Wrestlemania has been trending upwards for years every other ppv has been crashing and burning - you could argue that Brock accounted for a 27% increase as he negated the 10% decline that WWE could have expected without his appearance on the show, that argument can not be made for Rock on either Survivor Series or Wrestlemania as both have been trending upwards or downwards fewer than 5% a year.


Your argument could work if you applied it to Wrestlemania but even then it is not a fair comparison in the slightest and if you used percentages Brock wins, while gross numbers of course Rock would win since it is the bigger show. Companies don't analyze gross increases they analyze percentage increases as that is the way that numbers work, that is the way WWE looks at it and it is the way you should look at it. Brand recongization plays against your argument for it assists Rock in drawing at this bigger shows as people say "Oh Rock is coming back at Survivor Series, lets give it a shot".

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Your being ignorant. Since you obviously don't know the WWE gross numbers I will have them later on in this post. You apparently think that because something has more brand reconiziation it makes it more impressive to increase, even though in actuality that is absolutely wrong since more people are on the fence about buying Suvivor Series than Extreme Rules. It is much more impressive to say "Hey look at this ppv that has been losing 10-15% of its buys every year and seeing it increase by 17% rather than the ppv that has declined at 2-3% a year and then saw a 14% rise." but you just don't understand that. I don't know why, your usually quite reasonable.

Your reasoning is ridiculous - I have the numbers to back it up, proved them 3x. Just like one of the two major political parties your sounding ridiculous now. Rock has made 3 big appearances with amazing buildups and every single one has been statistically defeated by Brocks terrible build up and rushed match vs Cena. I guess you just don't like Brock but to deny he is the bigger draw is ignorance.



Lets say your big ppv = harder to draw theory was accurate. Then lets look at gross numbers rather than percentages shall we? I am sure it proves my point once more.


Extreme Rules saw 251,000 buys worldwide last month. An increase of 35000

WWE Survivor Series 2011 drew 280,000 buys. An increase of 36000.

So in GROSS numbers Rock drew 1000 more than Brock and he was on a far bigger ppv, so using your own argument Brocks feat was far more impressive. Back to the percentages which is the proper way to analyze the numbers - There was only a 29000 buy difference between the two events, far from the extravagant number you probably assumed, surely proving your point false.


Brock is the bigger draw. Rocks return match after 7 years increased buys 36000/280000, Brocks 35000/251000. Numbers don't lie, you can't ***** the numbers to make the Rock seem more impressive. Wrestlemania has been trending upwards for years every other ppv has been crashing and burning - you could argue that Brock accounted for a 27% increase as he negated the 10% decline that WWE could have expected without his appearance on the show, that argument can not be made for Rock on either Survivor Series or Wrestlemania as both have been trending upwards or downwards fewer than 5% a year.


Your argument could work if you applied it to Wrestlemania but even then it is not a fair comparison in the slightest and if you used percentages Brock wins, while gross numbers of course Rock would win since it is the bigger show. Companies don't analyze gross increases they analyze percentage increases as that is the way that numbers work, that is the way WWE looks at it and it is the way you should look at it. Brand recongization plays against your argument for it assists Rock in drawing at this bigger shows as people say "Oh Rock is coming back at Survivor Series, lets give it a shot".

Oh brother.

Ok kid.

Whatever makes you and your ******* fan boys feel better at night.

I laid it out very simply for you. It's not surprising, at all, that you're not able to get it.

You'll once again be moving to a stint on the block list because you've now moved beyond ignorant to down right stupid.

 

[silverbear]

Your being ignorant.

If you wish to call someone else ignorant, you'd be wise to learn the difference between "your", and "you're"...

Perhaps you should be studying your English textbook instead of watching all that wrestling every week...

You apparently think that because something has more brand reconiziation

"Reconiziation"??

I predict you're really gonna regret calling somebody else ignorant, young man... now your every error in grammar and syntax becomes fair game...

I'm getting quite sick of your arrogance, truth be told... from where I sit, you need to learn a little humility, real quick...

 

[silverbear]

Oh brother.

Ok kid.

Whatever makes you and your ******* fan boys feel better at night.d

I'm thinking R2A falls asleep and dreams of being cradled in Brock's sweaty arms... his fixation on the guy borders on the homoerotic...