Thread Tools

RedwineRaider · 02-07-2013, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shandcraig

Sure does look a lot more like a wrestling company and sure does look better with that name above it. When advertising for another event.

I didnt think that video was the companies ad until i saw it on the show tonight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZBp10It5GA

I bet sooner then later they will acutely promote the main part just like that .As they are all ready doing it. All part of the transition.

What?

Loopee · 02-07-2013, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedwineRaider

Then you and I aren't at odds here. I never said they should change the name to WCCW or AWA. That's something you pulled out of the collection of posts whenever you said the IWC shouldn't name things. I agree with you - today a legit name isn't necessary because wrestling has been exposed. Honestly I don't like the ROH name, but to each their own. It seems that the "honor" thing could only go so far as mainstream appeal goes.

So whatever I said that might have offended you, my apologies. But clearly we were on the same page from the start.

It's cool. I've been a dick, but I just hate when people trash the TNA name (not that I think it's a good name at all) and then give these half assed names. Massive pet peeve. I personally don't bother, because I know I suck at things like that, but I know a bad name and I'm pretty aware of how things may or may not be taken by the general public.

In terms of marketability, TNA is a better name than "Impact Wrestling" or even just "Impact". Of course, I can be proven wrong, but common sense just tells me that you're more than likely gonna have someone tune in to something they have no idea about over something they KNOW they don't wanna watch just down to the name alone. Over here, if I turn the channel, it tells me what's on before a picture comes up, so if I'm not interested based on the name, I'm moving on before I see anything.

But yeah...we were pretty much on the same page. As for ROH...it's a cool name. The best? Nah. The concept? It could work and could help establish heels a whole lot more if there's an actual code and could actually set itself away from the traditional pantomime style wrestling has got used to, but there are flaws to it.

Bowlen · 02-07-2013, 09:27 PM

shandcraig, you're name related postings are getting really stale. Get over it, the TNA name is going to stay and there's nothing wrong with that.

shandcraig · 02-07-2013, 09:36 PM

Some of those arenas are very smart. That arena Bellator is in tonight is perfect for Impact Wrestling. They would sell out an event at that place.

MTheBehemoth · 02-07-2013, 09:56 PM

* March 14th: Chicago, Illinois
* March 28th: Jonesboro, Arkansas
* April 11th: Corpus Christi, Texas
* June 6th: Duluth, Georgia

**The Tony** · 02-07-2013, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTheBehemoth

* March 14th: Chicago, Illinois
* March 28th: Jonesboro, Arkansas
* April 11th: Corpus Christi, Texas
* June 6th: Duluth, Georgia

Goldberg.

**The Tony** · 02-07-2013, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shandcraig

Some of those arenas are very smart. That arena Bellator is in tonight is perfect for Impact Wrestling. They would sell out an event at that place.

They also announced it in advance. I expect a sell out for the show in Atlanta.

hu_baddboi · 02-07-2013, 10:09 PM

Quote:

They also announced it in advance. I expect a sell out for the show in Atlanta.

They'll probably have a good crowd, but the Gwinnett Center holds about 13,000. They drew about 4,000 for BFG 2007 there (I was one of them!)

Rickey · 02-07-2013, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Tony

Goldberg.

Tony...pls.

RedwineRaider · 02-07-2013, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loopee

It's cool. I've been a dick, but I just hate when people trash the TNA name (not that I think it's a good name at all) and then give these half assed names. Massive pet peeve. I personally don't bother, because I know I suck at things like that, but I know a bad name and I'm pretty aware of how things may or may not be taken by the general public.

In terms of marketability, TNA is a better name than "Impact Wrestling" or even just "Impact". Of course, I can be proven wrong, but common sense just tells me that you're more than likely gonna have someone tune in to something they have no idea about over something they KNOW they don't wanna watch just down to the name alone. Over here, if I turn the channel, it tells me what's on before a picture comes up, so if I'm not interested based on the name, I'm moving on before I see anything.

But yeah...we were pretty much on the same page. As for ROH...it's a cool name. The best? Nah. The concept? It could work and could help establish heels a whole lot more if there's an actual code and could actually set itself away from the traditional pantomime style wrestling has got used to, but there are flaws to it.

I agree. TNA isn't a bad name but I do understand the double connotation along with it. I wish they had come up with a better all around name when they first started the company. "Total Nonstop Action" just sounds ridiculous, but if they just do an orphan initialism and use the TNA acronym only, much like WWE does now, I can see it staying. Just do no refer to "Total Nonstop Action" at all -- it's way too contrived.

ROH isn't the worse name, it's just not a favorite of mine. I can see the point about heels as I've always thought that myself. It's interesting in that regard but I don't think it's something the masses could get behind. Wrestling is so attached to a formula in the modern era that I don't think hardcore fans let alone casuals would appreciate such a change.