JNLister

On 3/31/2024 at 11:19 AM, Dai said:

Is there a paid for service which streams the 90s AJPW stuff? Id be more than happy to pay a monthly subscription for that, rather than dig around my external hard drives for a pixelated .wmv file of the matches.

Bit late replying to this, but the answer's no. The TV network owns the rights to the footage and hasn't shown any interest in making it available in any way.

Forgot to mention, I did the Lord's tour and saw the driest display caption ever:

The County Championship is back, baby: 

FWIW, Terry and Dory Funk sold the Amarillo territory in 1980 because they'd figured out cable TV would mean somebody went national and there'd be no room for local promotions.

Oof. Showed the BBC News report of this on Gogglebox and somebody described him as "The Mick Hucknall Forrest Gump."

17 minutes ago, FUM said:

This is the thing with the Punk stuff though - was it unprovoked? There’s no audio.

Just for the record, I’m absolutely not defending the actions. I just think the exaggerations and hyperbole used over a lesser scuffle than I’ve had with genuine mates is mental. It’s a wider item on Punk on this forum though, anything he does is met with a ridiculous amount of hyperbole. Again, not defending this particular action - he was the one in the wrong by the looks of it but it’s handbags really.

I think it's generally a workplace rule that if you're in a fight with colleagues where you're the first to get physical and you get suspended and then you come back and less than a year later have a fight with a colleague (three feet in front of your boss) where you're the first to get physical, you're probably not getting the benefit of the doubt.

Surely it's as simple as the guy who takes out Rock has to be clearly established as retired/immortal/legend, otherwise you question why Rock isn't having a match with him next rather than wrestling either Cody or Reigns. 

Played Tokkaido: Crosswords, aka the first expansion for the base Tokkaido. It's pretty simple stuff: each location now has a secondary option that adds a little twist. For example, at the farm where you get cash, you can instead gamble your money on a dice roll. The hot springs (where you randomly get either 2 or 3 points) has a bathhouse where you pay a coin for a guaranteed 4 points. Most of them are along the lines of "instead of normal thing, pay a coin for something better" which makes the money management more key.

It really doesn't dramatically change the gameplay, just adds a little variety if you've played the game a lot.

15 minutes ago, RedRooster said:

I don’t think you missed anything - I don’t remember seeing that, but presumably contracts will have been signed and switching would be a challenge given the magnitude of the event (assuming it’s due to take place somewhere that’s on the chillier side).

When do tickets typically go on sale for the following year?

It's heavily rumoured to be Minneapolis but it's an indoor stadium (albeit with a glass roof and most of one end.) But supposedly they haven't yet chosen between there and Vegas.

7 minutes ago, The Gaffer said:

It's like those finishers in the old Smackdown games. You only get a limited number of them.

Unlike in the actual McIntyre-Rollins match.

The fundraising has absolutely shot up. Probably just the publicity but I like to think a lot of people were thinking "I'll thrown in a tenner, but only if he finishes" like it was a sponsored fun run.

To be fair, Hardest Geezer defined "length of Africa" as "from the Northern-most point to the Southern-most point" which this guy didn't do. He "only" did North coast to South coast.

Played Wyrmspan which is somewhere between a (fully authorised) remake and a spinoff of Wingspan. It's themed on dragons rather than birds and uses many of the same mechanisms, but with a few rule changes. You now have two types of card, cave excavations and dragons, and you need to play an excavation card in a space before you can put a dragon there. Meanwhile laying eggs and getting new cards are no longer actions in themselves and instead you can only do them as a benefit of playing a card.

There's also a little "quest" tracker that you can move up as a benefit of some cards. Each space on the tracker gets you something (a resource or card or extra go) and going right rounf the tracker lets you claim an end game bonus, most of which are limited.

The upshot is that it's slightly more streamlined than the original and less likely to fall into the "last round is just laying eggs" trap. I wouldn't call it better however: if you like Wingspan, this doesn't significantly improve it, and if you don't like Wingspan this probably won't make much difference.

Just announced that in January he attempted straight line across England. Video coming May.

(To be fair, Hardest Geezer probably now holds unassailable records for both straight line and no roads.)

Slight detour away from Twitter, but here''s the full video of Lord White's appearance: 
 

19 hours ago, waters44 said:

That is insane!!! @JNLister are there any good YouTube channels for some old AJW?

https://www.youtube.com/@ajw_womens_wrestling_videos is the official one, though'll you need to translate the titles. Seems to be mainly mid-90s.

Played Shipwrights Of The North Sea Redux, which is a complete remake/rules change of what was the first in a long series of games (including the more successful Raiders of The Lost Sea). It's a pretty basic format of "get the right combination of resources and workers to build a particular ship for points" which you do through a combination of card drafting and worker placement. With each card you can either pay the required resources to keep it permanently, put it in your shipyard to use later (which is free but space is limited and you lose the card once it's eventually used), or discard it for resources.

It's a simple game that can still be a bit overwhelming as you can do a lot of stuff in any order, and resources are exchangeable in several ways, so in the last turn in particular you're trying to figure out a lot of possible combos to try to get the outcome you want.

It's not always intuitive and takes a couple of rounds to get to grips with, which is a bit of an issue as it's only 5 rounds, so definitely a game that would improve on a repeat play. There's effectively no player interaction so it's not one for people who like screwing over opponents. 

I've just launched www.johnlisterwrestling.com which has dozens of articles/profiles/interviews from FSM and The Fight Network. It's pretty much everything that isn't either time sensitive or in any of my books.

Bloody hell, that's what you get for assuming.

My new answer to this question is Papa Shango.

Not exactly a high peak, but Tito Santana had a double slide from grace.

1-3 Won the first match in Wrestle Mania history > lost a tag match > lost a six man

4-9 Tag team champion (but lost titles) > lost a tag match > lost an extended squash > lost in 81 seconds > lost the opener > lost the dark match.

I'm sure I've posted this here before, but this is an interview I did with Sean Herbert just after he'd sold the channel and it was rebranded:

Quote

 

With Britain’s TWC Fight! channel now rebranded as a UK version of the Fight Network, I spoke this week to Sean Herbert, the man behind the channel since its 2004 launch. Though he was unable to talk about the specifics behind the rebranding, he was able to talk through some of the issues behind the channel’s running which many viewers are unaware of.

 

What were the best and worst decisions you made at TWC?

 

There was never any one bad decision. I suppose when we launched, our costs were very high, as it was all new to us: we had too many editors, we were paying too much for programming, and or workflow wasn’t as tight as it is now. All these improvements come with time though, so there was nothing we really could have done differently at the time, without being able to see the future. I suppose for my own sake, I would probably stay completely away from posting on the internet.

 

I guess the best decisions we made were knowing when to pull back and stop losing money in the hope it would turn around. We reduced costs by approx 50% going into 2005, and actually turned a profit by just showing the programmes that did well for us in 2004, and doing ratings-based deals for most new content, instead of a flat fee. We are in business to make money – not to lose money while building a brand, as that’s never guaranteed. We always kept a tight control on costs, which, despite internet speculation of doom & gloom whenever we pulled back and reduced content/costs, has enabled us to last almost 4 years now!

 

What effect did the loss of TNA have on the channel?

 

It was a big loss, but it was never our highest rated show to begin with. It also coincided with our re-branding to TWC Fight!, so we had just started showing a lot of new MMA programming anyway, and we had a whole new audience replacing the loss of TNA viewers. It was definitely unfortunate, as it was our best produced show, but it was bound to happen at some stage as TNA grew.

 

What prompted the switch in focus from purely wrestling to including MMA as well?

 

The rise in popularity of MMA, and the decline in popularity of wrestling worldwide. We also found that there was less & less quality wrestling content even available to fill our schedule, and a lot of the promotions we started showing in 2004 were out of business: FWA, 3PW, GAEA, Wildside, MLW, etc. It was a necessary, and fruitful, decision.

 

Did being a wrestling channel have any effect (positive or negative) on ad sales, or was it purely down to viewing figures?

 

Mainly down to figures. Our audience is primarily males aged 16-34, which is THE key demographic that advertisers seek. As long as we delivered that audience for them, then there was no real difficulty at all.

 

BARB’s rating system (the UK equivalent of Nielsen, which produces figures based on a sample of just 5,000 homes) made it difficult to measure audiences on a niche channel like TWC. Did you know this going on, or was it an unforeseen problem?

 

We were fully aware of this going in, as the Dolphin TV managing directors have been in the broadcast industry for years. (Dolphin is a broadcasting firm involved in the channel’s management.) It’s a known issue that all niche channels complain about but have to deal with: the industry has changed in the last ten years, but BARB hasn’t changed or updated with it. Sure, BARB worked when there were 5 or 6 channels – but now with hundreds of satellite channels, 5000 homes are far from representative of what the UK are watching!

 

Several programmes were dropped because they had low ratings and therefore you couldn’t sell advertising for them. Would it have been possible to sell packages of advertising across the schedule based on the channel’s overall figures instead?

 

That’s how we already sell all our advertising. For example, if we sell a campaign to ‘Lucozade’, and promise to deliver 180,000 (18-34 male) viewers to them, that means we schedule their adverts during our shows until we deliver that number of viewers. And we HAVE to deliver those numbers, so ‘Lucozade’ will never be left short; poorer ratings might just mean it takes us longer to deliver. If it takes 2 months, so be it. With some shows rating Zero (that is, no viewers in homes measured by BARB), it means we can’t reach that figure, and we’re wasting potential advertising time. And it’s still costing us money to air that show because of broadcasting costs, satellite time, listing feed, editing, admin and so on. So not only do we not make money from a ‘Zero’ rated show, we actually lose money, as the channel’s running costs still need to be paid. So if a show delivers very poor ratings, it gets dropped. It’s basic business.

 

Was TWC profitable over its lifetime?

 

It wasn’t in 2004, and it was in 2005 & 2006. It was around break-even in 2007, but for the last few months of 2007 we avoided buying any new programming, as we were negotiating with The Fight Network. We didn’t want to be buying any new content from September 2007 onwards as we didn’t know what the plan would be going forward, so couldn’t commit to any deals. That obviously affected our ratings as we ran a lot of repeats towards the end of 2007, but it was a necessity that we couldn’t then explain publicly.

 

Which were/are the highest rated shows on the channel?

 

World of Sport – it always has been since day one, consistently and by a considerable amount.

 

Was it a surprise that World of Sport did so well? Did it bring in a different audience to other shows?

 

Yes, generally it attracted an older demographic, but a lot of younger people and current fans also tuned in to see what all the fuss was about. It wasn’t really a surprise at all, since it attracted such a huge rating back in the day, there was bound to be a significant amount of people tuning in for nostalgia alone, and luckily they stayed tuned! I was more surprised that most other shows didn’t rate so well!

 

Will there ever be in-house productions like The Bagpipe Report again?

 

Likely not from TWC, but The Fight Network produce some fantastic in-house programming already, like One on One, Rough and Wrestling Reality, as well as daily Knockout News items. We are currently working with Redchurch productions in bringing viewers the latest UK news too, as was seen just this weekend with our pre-fight coverage of UFC 80 in Newcastle, with Ian Freeman interviewing various fighters! But it’s likely that TFN may produce something similar to the Bagpipe Report at some stage as they have lots of fresh & exciting plans & ideas for moving forward!

 

What variations did you find in the way British promotions dealt with the channel?

 

Some were more obviously far more professional than others in their approach to looking for a TV deal in the first place. RQW actually used an agency to approach us for a deal, which was a very professional approach, albeit not necessary, but a nice touch. On the flipside, despite having press and general contact info on our website, you’d be surprised how many people sent me private messages on various internet forums asking for a TV deal. They spouted all sorts of made-up statistics about the attendance for their shows (or their intended shows), complete with atrocious spelling and most (not just some) even forgetting to name their promotion or sign their own name at the end of their message! Sometimes I’d be lucky to get a website link.

 

From the British promotions we did do deals with, some were more organised & professional than others in the delivery of their shows for playout (some were frequently late, and the episodes had to be cancelled), and some were late with delivery of synopsis & duration information to us: anytime our weekly listings newsletter said “Listings Not Available” for a British promotion, it simply meant that they weren’t arsed e-mailing through a synopsis for their TV show. Yet sometimes I’d see the synopsis posted on the UKFF forum (which was obviously their priority over the SKY TV Guide), so we’d copy and paste it from there: unbelievable! And some didn’t adhere to censorship guidelines, and episodes had to be pulled. That said, anyone falling into this latter category didn’t last very long on the channel anyway.

 

What advice would you have for British promotions hoping to get on TV?

 

Let TV be your final goal. Concentrate on getting the crowds in the door (in addition to keeping your costs down), so you don’t lose money on your shows. And there’s no better promotion method than local postering and flyering (see All-Star & LDN as prime examples of how to draw crowds), and some local radio & newspaper ads only if you can afford it. If you’re consistently drawing good crowds, then slowly start buying some branded equipment like a ring apron, and maybe a small set/entranceway. Then try to find a COST EFFECTIVE way of getting your shows taped – usually film/media students will do it for cheap, as they want experience, but most of them haven’t a clue either, so don’t be afraid to tell them to bugger off if they do a poor job.

 

Good lighting is paramount, and a good wide shot angled down on the ring. If you don’t have a good wide shot, and use close-up shots too much, then the editing will give off a cramped feeling and be hard to watch. Get a few shows taped and get them produced onto DVD, and don’t approach a TV company until you are happy with your DVD product. Get some good graphic templates together that you can use for all of your name-bars, replays, transitions, opening credits, etc. This is worth investing in and only has to be done once, because if it looks good, it can be used on all DVDs and any other video output. Try to find a few unsigned bands to provide music, as you can’t be using commercial tracks, as it comes across as unprofessional and will leave the TV channel liable for PRS (performing rights society) fees, so they’ll likely dismiss it there and then.

 

And something people always underestimate is sound: take a hard line from your mixing desk into one of your cameras, because in most indie promotions , you can’t hear a word they’re saying once someone takes the mic. And finally, if you’re happy with your picture, editing, sound quality, music, graphics, crowds and set, then contact a TV company by formal letter providing info such as: where you’re based, how long you’ve been running, what crowds you usually draw, can you produce weekly & episodic TV, etc. Don’t send a badly written PM on a forum!

 

You were a fairly regular and often outspoken poster on internet forums during TWC’s time on air? Did this help or hurt the channel?

 

Maybe it hurt the internet’s public perception of TWC a little bit, but our ratings were never reflected by what was going on on the net, as is usually the case with attendance at shows too. The internet is not the bigger picture. I was put under an immediate spotlight when news of TWC broke, scrutiny for everything that was going on on-air, and took lot of unnecessary (in my opinion) abuse; but I didn’t handle it very well either. Myy instinct was to be defensive, and that didn’t do me any favours.

 

Most viewers and fans have no idea what goes on behind the scenes, and what’s involved with running a channel (and it was my first time too!), and we were doing licensing deals with some of the craziest people I have ever dealt with in any walk of life. I would get wound up easily, because people thought it was as simple as “get old AJPW matches!” There are about half a dozen variables in doing a deal, that need to be considered and in place, so it was frustrating at the time. I was a fan for years before launching TWC, and I was also on the net for years having slagging matches with people on various forums, as most people do (especially wrestling fans). Then  I suddenly had to stop and/or take abuse and respond politely & professionally. Iit was all new to me at the time, but it’s 4 years later now, and I like to think I’ve improved.

 

How representative was/is the TWC internet of the channel’s audience?

 

I have gotten some good constructive advice from some of the more intelligent posters on the TWC forums and the UKFF, which we always took onboard. But of we listened to the internet alone and started airing some of the smaller, more niche promotions, we’d be marketing the channel towards a very VERY niche audience (and we’re niche enough as it is!), and we’d have been well out of business by now!

 

One or two more obscure programmes are fine, like CZW, and the odd IWA: Mid South ‘Supercard’, as it brings variety into the schedule, but if we showed any more than that, it would affect our overall ratings, which are already tight. So it’s all about finding the right balance between mass appeal (World of Sport, Cage Fighter, TNA), UK/home-based programming (LDN, UK MMA, RQW, IWW) and niche shows (CZW, Gladiator Challenge, IWA, GAEA). It’s easier said on the internet than done in reality. Despite all the criticisms, we have lasted 4 years and are growing, and I have made a very healthy living out of the business I have been a fan of since 1986.

 

Why are Reform UK and GB News suddenly so interested in the opinions of a foreigner?

This could be General Politics, but it's a Tory cunt so (shrug.emoji):