Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

Truthslayer's PPV Review Of TNA's Genesis 09

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
7,648
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Jan 11, 2009

PPV Score: 8.25

LAX and Eric Young vs. Jimmy Rave, Sonjay Dutt and Kiyoshi: ***

Chris Sabin vs. Alex Shelley: ****

Shane Sewell vs. Sheik Bashir: **

Consequences Creed & Jay Lethal vs. Beer Money vs.
Matt Morgan & Abyss: *** 1/2

Taylor Wilde, ODB and Roxxi vs Sojourner Bolt, Rhaka Khan and Raisha Saeed: *

Jeff Jarrett vs. Kurt Angle: **** 1/2

Sting vs. Rhino: **

Mick Foley, AJ Styles and Devon vs. Booker T, Scott Steiner, Cute Kip:
**3/4

Category:

Sports

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 11 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (350)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Sabin vs Shelley was awesome.

  • dude for one time stop bitching jesus

  • Look. Anything that WWE does is better than anything that TNgAy does; that's a given. However, WM 25 was pretty pedestrian. HBK vs. UT was phenomenal, but that was basically it. JBL losing to Rey in 21 seconds was disturbing. The tag title match not being on TV pissed me off. Also, HHH going over Orton without Rhodes, DiBiase, or the McMahons even interfering in the match was pretty lame. Orton looks like crap again after being pushed as a monster heel.

  • PPV isn't what makes a company. Back then you had house shows and before PPV, wrestling was still selling out Madison Square Garden. The main reason it took WWE so long is Vince didn't get control until the 70s. He decided to backstab and become greedy. Wrestling had close-circuit tv, an old form of PPV.

  • It took them thirty years because there WAS no PPV back then. There were no cable TV stations either. Wrestling was limited to syndication back then. It was a different era than now.

  • So what if they are higher? That is supposed to mean TNA should die? At one point WWE was in the same position with WCW. With that logic it shows when WWE was at its top it still lost, so in your ideology they sucked. WWE began in the 50s, it took them 30 years to get to the level that TNA is currently at, on National TV with PPVs.

  • WWE's buyrates in comparison to their TV ratings are also much higher than TNgAy's. It took WWE 30 years to get to what? They didn't even have PPV's back then. You really can't compare eras.

  • Considering the general public do not know the correct buyrate for TNA PPVs, you can't say that with absoluteness. Plus WWE's buyrates are falling. They are now around 150,000. 30,000 is fans opinions on TNA. Considering TNA does not promote that well and are still somewhat unknown, which they are, if that is around the correct figure that is pretty good considering they don't travel that much. Plus TNA got to where it is in 7 years, which took WWE 30 years to get to the same level.

  • WWE's buyrates are way better than TNgAy's.

  • That information doesn't exist. TNA had the rights to the buyrate. They are the one who are allowed to recent it. If In Demand do it is because TNA allowed them too. WWE's buyrates are falling. They can't even beat their 2006 numbers, and 2006 was shit.

View all Comments »
Loading...

0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more