Pro Wrestling Since 1997


Another TNA PPV axed?

In addition to TNA dropping their February PPV Against All Odds, to allow a two month build to the 3/10 Lockdown PPV at the Alamodome in San Antonio, Texas, The Wrestling Observer reports that TNA is also dropping the September PPV (No Surrender) to allow a two month build up leading into the Bound for Glory PPV.

Post Category: News

Tags: , , , , ,

16 Responses

  1. James says:

    I think that’s a smart move on TNA’s part. I believe the 12 PPVs a year is tiring at times. Rematch after rematch, plus matches with no build-up. I say it’s a wise decision.

  2. JD Storm says:

    this could be a smart move. TNA doesn’t have enough tv time to hype all their ppv matches. this should provide enough time to properly build up to their ppvs. if this works, ppv numbers should hopefully see improvement.

  3. Josh says:

    I wish they would go down to 6 a year in TNA and the WWE! Like the previous comments said to build up the storylines! Have a ppv every 3 to 4 is getting tired!

  4. izzy says:

    Smartest move that TNA has yet to come up with. I just wish that WWE would follow this idea for the lead up to Mania and either Summer Slam or Survivor Series.

  5. scotty danger says:

    I was a fan of TNA’s strategy from years back, when they’d only do a heavyweight championship match every other pay per view. On the PPV without the title match, they’d do a tag match or something with the champion that was relevant to the storyline at hand.

    Imagine if WWE tried that. Instead of both title being defended at every PPV, give the WHC a show, then the WWEC the next. Allows for a little more diversity with your champions, then gives the big four more special feel since BOTH titles are being defended on those shows.

  6. zach says:

    Couldn’t agree with the others more this is a great move by TNA this is a very smart move and the months of February and September should make for great TV and some top notch PPV style match.

  7. darko says:

    I’ve always thought wwe should bring back kotr to help build new talent (it always worked before) and only keep a handful of ppvs besides. The rumble, summerslam, survivor series (with traditional eliminatiom matches) and mania. Maybe keep elimination chamber and night of champions. Put mitb back at mania and do away with all the excess titles. It was great back in the day. World champ ic champ tag champs (and keep the divas but bring back the old belt) then divisions would actually matter.

  8. bravest PAPAyA says:

    I have to agree this is a smart move…there should only be 3-4 PPVs a year to make them special.

  9. Clayton says:

    They should drop back to 8 a year, having 2 ppvs a quarter. Also stop having their ppv events at universal studios

  10. trev says:

    i said this a year back!!! i’m going to say its the best move ever tna have done!!! and at two ppv’s a year they drop a bomb shell to rock the company either a top star enters or someone leaves

  11. BK says:

    I love that people think this is a good idea. Lets be honest here folks. If the PPV would have made money, they NEVER would have considered scrapping it. They’ll tell you “it’s for the fans!” And “we needed more buildup for these matches!”, but it reality they are saying “we can’t afford to do 12 PPV’s per year.

  12. Timmy Zyla says:

    BK, I think it’s evident they have a lot of money to spend….and BLOW…so your theory is flawed. But, this is a good move by TNA…..hope it works out well.

  13. BK says:

    Then why are they still holding weekly events and PPV’s in an amusement park in front of 100 people Timmy? There is only one thing that “BLOW”s and that’s TNA’s ability to make something of itself.

  14. Mimura says:

    @scotty danger
    They actually did that in the initial brand splits back in 2002. The ppvs other than the big four (actually it was the big five then with king of the ring), were brand specific.

  15. Timmy Zyla says:

    BK, it’s apparent they have no problem spending money and aren’t afraid to get no return on investment. Which is why the company hasn’t turned a profit, but yet still wastes money booking a venue like the Astrodome that seats 70,000 fans when their PPVs usually draw around 3,500-5,000 fans including being papered.

  16. Ian says:

    Personally i have always though that 12 PPVs a year was way too many because you end up with the same matches month after month and have no build up at all. I would prefer 4-5 PPVs a year with a couple of TV Supercards (ala Clash of the Champions) where you could have some different types of match ups.

    One of my favorite times before the monthly PPV idea was always the time between Summer Slam and Survivor Series (when Survivor Series was ALL Survivor matches) and you had months of build up where teams would slowly form and we ended up with tag team and 6 person matches that you normally wouldnt see.

Leave a Reply



Is Seth Rollins over rated?

Loading ... Loading ...

Should Demolition be inducted into the GERWECK.NET Hall of Fame?

Loading ... Loading ...

Will Impact Wrestling find a new TV home after leaving Destination America?

Loading ... Loading ...