APRIL 2022 WRESTLING DISCUSSION

[NoFistsJustFlips]

2 hours ago, SirSmellingtonofCascadia said:

Roman is a dud. Actually, The Shield is the best argument for creating and elevating a trios division. Three guys who aren't legit main event draws on their own, but who are a trios draw when put together. And there's nothing wrong with that, either!

This is a bizzaro land post lol. Roman absolutely is a draw. What's being conflated is a draw vs a mainstream star. Roman sells tickets. He's a draw to a wrestling audience. There have been Raw shows that were doing poorly in tickets sale that they added Roman to and tickets shot up by 2,000. He's not a mainstream star. He's not a household name. He hasn't broken through to the mainstream like a Hogan / Rock / Austin. But more wrestling fans pay to see a show he is on vs one he is not on. The same goes for Brock. TV ratings are what they are. But if we're talking drawing wrestling fans into the building Roman & Brock both qualify.

[SirSmUgly]

4 minutes ago, NoFistsJustFlips said:

This is a bizzaro land post lol. Roman absolutely is a draw. What's being conflated is a draw vs a mainstream star. Roman sells tickets. He's a draw to a wrestling audience. There have been Raw shows that were doing poorly in tickets sale that they added Roman to and tickets shot up by 2,000. He's not a mainstream star. He's not a household name. He hasn't broken through to the mainstream like a Hogan / Rock / Austin. But more wrestling fans pay to see a show he is on vs one he is not on. The same goes for Brock. TV ratings are what they are. But if we're talking drawing wrestling fans into the building Roman & Brock both qualify.

WWE's TV audience is shrinking and has been since Roman has been on top. What's Bizarro Land is to argue that Roman is somehow a draw while being on top of a company that is less popular at any point since 1995.

I guess Diesel was also a draw then since wrestling fans bought tickets to watch him.

I'm sorry, but if "2,000 more fans bought tickets on a house show" is what we're using to determine who is a draw, that's fine, but then a whole lot more wrestlers are draws and this conversation is moot. The context of the discussion and how we typically talk about who's a "draw," pretty clearly (I thought) was about someone who helps drive the business in a significant way, which it's hard to do when you're not a household name. 

Maybe if I use the words "significant draw," that would be better? I think you can be that without being a household name, necessarily, but again, the metrics for Roman are pretty terrible. And I mean, I like the guy and he seems like a good dude and is a solid wrestler. 

Edited April 19, 2022 by SirSmellingtonofCascadia

[odessasteps]

11 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

It's weird that as further away WWE has gotten with kayfabe and being open with letting people behind the curtain. The more forceful they are about the fans accepting their chosen person as the Ace of the company no matter how much the Audience kicks against it. Naturally the audience is going to feel like they have a voice on who they want as the top guy and reject the person who they feel you are trying to force in that spot, even if that person is top guy material. Austin and Rock felt more like the people's choice. Even Rock who had the Pedigree and sculpted like what a top guy should look like, for whatever reason still turned into the peoples choice. I like Cena and I think he was a great representation of the company and an excellent worker but the company still forced the Audience to accept him even though a good portion of the audience rejected him.

And Rock had the initial "die, Rocky, Die"  phase when the people hated him. 

[zendragon]

I've felt that for a long time wrestling is like the circus, when it comes to town you take the kids to the circus cause its the circus not because you have a special affinity for this clown or that acrobat. Now maybe you have a preference for an act, but thats not the main reason you went. When WWE positions itself as the attraction you get Sasha/Roman level stars but no more Hogan/Austin/Rock level starts 

[NoFistsJustFlips]

3 minutes ago, SirSmellingtonofCascadia said:

Maybe if I use the words "significant draw," that would be better? I think you can be that without being a household name, necessarily, but again, the metrics for Roman are pretty terrible. And I mean, I like the guy and he seems like a good dude and is a solid wrestler. 

That would be more clear. A draw  is literally someone who draws fans to the building. It's a business metric. A mainstream star is what you guys are debating. Like Hogan wasn't considered a draw because of the TV ratings he was getting. He was considered a draw because he drew paying fans to the buildings for WWE. That's traditionally what a draw means. Like WCW's attendance went way the fuck up when they hired Hogan away. Because he drew way more paying fans to the buildings than they did before he got there.

And to that end, no one is denying Stone Cold is a draw right? He's a significant draw and a mainstream star as well. He's a household name. And even his appearance doesn't change the TV ratings these days. But the live attendance sure goes up if he's booked on TV. That's what a draw is. You draw paying customers to see you.

[zendragon]

14 minutes ago, Stefanie the Human said:

 

So really... shouldn't we be more concerned about whether the show was enjoyable or not? Because nothing gets my eyes rolling faster than an enjoyable show getting shit on because someone saying "well the building was only half full". So what. I don't watch wrestling to see how many people are in the crowd.

Well If a band I like can sell records or fill the clubs they stop making records. A healthy pro wrestling industry means I can continue to enjoy what I like (or at least have options)

[zendragon]

Just now, NoFistsJustFlips said:

That would be more clear. A draw  is literally someone who draws fans to the building. It's a business metric. A mainstream star is what you guys are debating. Like Hogan wasn't considered a draw because of the TV ratings he was getting. He was considered a draw because he drew paying fans to the buildings for WWE. That's traditionally what a draw means. Like WCW's attendance went way the fuck up when they hired Hogan away. Because he drew way more paying fans to the buildings than they did before he got there.

And to that end, no one is denying Stone Cold is a draw right? He's a significant draw and a mainstream star as well. He's a household name. And even his appearance doesn't change the TV ratings these days. But the live attendance sure goes up if he's booked on TV. That's what a draw is. You draw paying customers to see you.

Well the Austin and Hogan era where different for what it meant to be drawing. In Hogans era (and Bruno before him) TV was just used to get people to the house shows. In Austin's era the PPV numbers meant more. Now its all about getting big TV money when in previous eras the TV was the loss leader.

[NoFistsJustFlips]

12 minutes ago, SirSmellingtonofCascadia said:

I guess Diesel was also a draw then since wrestling fans bought tickets to watch him.

Just to add to my point, this is incorrect. Did Diesel being on a show bring more paying customers to events than the events he wasn't on? The answer is actually no. He had a negative affect the houses. And is widely regarded as one of the worst drawing WWE Champions of all time. The TV ratings at the time aren't what's cited for that metric. That's not what defines a draw. It's the paid attendance. And paid attendance was way down with Diesel on top vs Bret Hart on top. hence he was not a draw at all. (As Diesel. nWo Kevin Nash was definitely a draw for WCW).

Edited April 19, 2022 by NoFistsJustFlips

[Guest Stefanie Without Stefanie]

1 minute ago, zendragon said:

Well If a band I like can sell records or fill the clubs they stop making records. A healthy pro wrestling industry means I can continue to enjoy what I like (or at least have options)

I mean, having discussions about ratings and attendance figures doesn't do much to support the things you like.

Talking about the things you like and encouraging others to give them a try supports the things you like.

[SirSmUgly]

1 minute ago, NoFistsJustFlips said:

That would be more clear. A draw  is literally someone who draws fans to the building. It's a business metric. A mainstream star is what you guys are debating. Like Hogan wasn't considered a draw because of the TV ratings he was getting. He was considered a draw because he drew paying fans to the buildings for WWE. That's traditionally what a draw means. Like WCW's attendance went way the fuck up when they hired Hogan away. Because he drew way more paying fans to the buildings than they did before he got there.

And to that end, no one is denying Stone Cold is a draw right? He's a significant draw and a mainstream star as well. He's a household name. And even his appearance doesn't change the TV ratings these days. But the live attendance sure goes up if he's booked on TV. That's what a draw is. You draw paying customers to see you.

Well, really the house show circuit in WCW was grown via Savage and Flair drawing with their feud, but WCW's business was drastically better in that case.

Again, when we talk about draws, the context is always in terms of significance because almost all wrestlers draw someone to the building. It's sort of obtuse to use that term in the way that you are; we all know that almost every wrestler has their fans.

[SirSmUgly]

1 minute ago, NoFistsJustFlips said:

Just to add to my point, this is incorrect. Did Diesel being on a show bring more paying customers to events than the events he wasn't on? The answer is actually no. He had a negative affect the houses. And is widely regarded as one of the worst drawing WWE Champions of all time. The TV ratings at the time aren't what's cited for that metric. That's not what defines a draw. It's the paid attendance. And paid attendance was way down with Diesel on top vs Bret Hart on top. hence he was not a draw at all. (As Diesel. nWo Kevin Nash was definitely a draw for WCW).

By your own definition, Diesel had fans who paid specifically to see him, so he is a draw.

It doesn't help the conversation to be obtuse.

[NoFistsJustFlips]

1 minute ago, SirSmellingtonofCascadia said:

Again, when we talk about draws, the context is always in terms of significance because almost all wrestlers draw someone to the building. It's sort of obtuse to use that term in the way that you are; we all know that almost every wrestler has their fans.

I don't know if you're not understanding me or just disagree with me. But this is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying a Monday Night Raw was set to make a $300,000 gate in 2021 but once Reigns was added to the show the week before for a dark match, they made $100,000 more at the gate than they would have if they didn't add him.

That's not obtuse because almost no one does that significant of an increase in WWE. We're talking only Roman, Brock, & Cena that add that kind of a value to a card vs just the WWE brand. Adding Bobby Lashley to a card would not increase 2,000 ticket sales. Adding Seth Rollins wouldn't move $100,000 more of money being added to a show.

I'm not being obtuse at all. That is literally the definition of a draw. A guy who makes you way more money by being on the show. A show with Reigns on the card will draw $100k - $300k more at the gate than a show without him. That's a draw. The literal definition of a draw. Making the company more money by his presence. You're conflating a bunch of things here. Making the company more money with your presence is literally what a draw is.

[Burgundy LaRue]

Another thing to consider is the rise of social media. Nielsen looks at that with separate metrics. WWE (and AEW too) do well with that. How much money is made from that, I have no clue. But you have to figure there's something to it. 

So who are some of the wrestlers who move that metric on their own? Roman, Cody, Ronda and Brock trend regularly. For AEW, Punk does well. Tony Khan does too, albeit for his sometimes questionable Twitter etiquette. Others trend too, but those are the ones who I've seen do so consistently.

@NoFistsJustFlipsbrings up a great point about Roman not being a household name. Nick Khan did an interview before WM and Triple H did one a couple of days ago that allude to how WWE had trouble getting current wrestlers booked even for NBC/NBCU late night shows. Roman has been on Fallon a couple of times in the last several months. Khan has indicated that they plan on promoting him more so he becomes a household name. So they see the need to do that. And if they can get Roman to some level of regular mainstream fame, pushing others in that direction will be easier.

[SirSmUgly]

6 minutes ago, NoFistsJustFlips said:

I don't know if you're not understanding me or just disagree with me. But this is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying a Monday Night Raw was set to make a $300,000 gate in 2021 but once Reigns was added to the show the week before for a dark match, they made $100,000 more at the gate than they would have if they didn't add him.

That's not obtuse because almost no one does that significant of an increase in WWE. We're talking only Roman, Brock, & Cena that add that kind of a value to a card vs just the WWE brand. Adding Bobby Lashley to a card would not increase 2,000 ticket sales. Adding Seth Rollins wouldn't move $100,000 more of money being added to a show.

I'm not being obtuse at all. That is literally the definition of a draw. A guy who makes you way more money by being on the show. A show with Reigns on the card will draw $100k - $300k more at the gate than a show without him. That's a draw. The literal definition of a draw. Making the company more money by his presence. You're conflating a bunch of things here. Making the company more money with your presence is literally what a draw is.

I don't think this conversation is productive, so let me simply stipulate that you are right, Roman is a draw, and I should have used "significant draw" because not everyone apparently agreed on what definition of "draw" we were using. Then, let's move on. 

[Ziggy]

20 minutes ago, zendragon said:

I've felt that for a long time wrestling is like the circus, when it comes to town you take the kids to the circus cause its the circus not because you have a special affinity for this clown or that acrobat. Now maybe you have a preference for an act, but thats not the main reason you went. When WWE positions itself as the attraction you get Sasha/Roman level stars but no more Hogan/Austin/Rock level stars 

True but unlike the circus you have weekly programming and even though the brand itself is the attraction  they'll always have that one guy and or girl that's pushed more dominantly as the Ace of the company than everyone else.

[Ziggy]

1 hour ago, NoFistsJustFlips said:

Just to add to my point, this is incorrect. Did Diesel being on a show bring more paying customers to events than the events he wasn't on? The answer is actually no. He had a negative affect the houses. And is widely regarded as one of the worst drawing WWE Champions of all time. The TV ratings at the time aren't what's cited for that metric. That's not what defines a draw. It's the paid attendance. And paid attendance was way down with Diesel on top vs Bret Hart on top. hence he was not a draw at all. (As Diesel. nWo Kevin Nash was definitely a draw for WCW).

I can't say that it was directly related to his but towards the end of his run in WWF he was headlining MSG cards that they were finally selling out for the first time since Before Hogan's run was over. Diesel was a flop as Champion mainly because of how he was booked but once he dropped the belt he got to be Kevin Nash with a black glove. As Champion he was basically a tall lanky "Lex Express" Lex Luger.

[Log]

5 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

I can't say that it was directly related to his but towards the end of his run in WWF he was headlining MSG cards that they were finally selling out for the first time since Before Hogan's run was over. Diesel was a flop as Champion mainly because of how he was booked but once he dropped the belt he got to be Kevin Nash with a black glove. As Champion he was basically a tall lanky "Lex Express" Lex Luger.

Vince has a weird thing where he has a heel that is getting over with fans and they see him as cool.  Then, he turns them face and makes them a dork. 
 

He did it with Diesel, but then didn’t with Austin and Rock (that worked out well for him), then did it with Cena and Roman for a while. 

[EVA]

I think the best way to sum up Roman as a “draw” might be this: Among WWE fans, he’s clearly a draw. If you’re into the product WWE is selling right now, then Roman’s name on a card can motivate you to get your ass in a seat at an arena or in front of the TV. WWE has spent the better part of a decade training its fans to view Roman as the most important guy they have, and when he’s on the card, they accordingly view it as more important than a card he’s not on.

However, among people who aren’t fans of the current WWE product (whom WWE has struggled to attract for the better part of the last decade) or people who are watching but losing interest in the current WWE product (whom WWE has struggled to retain for the better part of the last decade), I think there’s quite a lot of evidence to suggest Roman has not proven to be much of a difference maker with those people at all.

But, as this discussion has shown, what constitutes a “draw” in pro wrestling is a fairly nebulous concept. Does one matter more than the other in this conversation? Do you need to tick all those boxes to be a “true” draw? Place the goal posts where you like.

[zendragon]

10 hours ago, Burgundy LaRue said:

Another thing to consider is the rise of social media. Nielsen looks at that with separate metrics. WWE (and AEW too) do well with that. How much money is made from that, I have no clue. But you have to figure there's something to it. 

So who are some of the wrestlers who move that metric on their own? Roman, Cody, Ronda and Brock trend regularly. For AEW, Punk does well. Tony Khan does too, albeit for his sometimes questionable Twitter etiquette. Others trend too, but those are the ones who I've seen do so consistently.

@NoFistsJustFlipsbrings up a great point about Roman not being a household name. Nick Khan did an interview before WM and Triple H did one a couple of days ago that allude to how WWE had trouble getting current wrestlers booked even for NBC/NBCU late night shows. Roman has been on Fallon a couple of times in the last several months. Khan has indicated that they plan on promoting him more so he becomes a household name. So they see the need to do that. And if they can get Roman to some level of regular mainstream fame, pushing others in that direction will be easier.

I think the youtube views and socials are an interesting way to view being a "draw" in the modern era. Bruno never had to sell PPVS, Hogan had to sell PPVS but the finish to The Big Event was still to draw at the house shows, Austin time was less house shows but more PPV and TV ratings. Now House shows are slowly going extinct but things like Youtube matter and rating are king.

The household name thing is to me very relevant. I've always used the "mom test" to determine if I think someone is a star. I'm sure she knows The Rock, Hogan, Austin, probably has heard of Flair doubt she knows Sasha Banks or Roman Reigns 

 

[AxB]

If YouTube views prove someone is a draw, the Wheeler Yuta/ John Moxley match did over a million in under 24hrs. 

[Hagan]

16 hours ago, Log said:

When I think "draw", I think the person people pay/tune in/show up to see.  Rhonda and Brock appearances may have spiked ratings, so that's something.  I just think we're past the days of a wrestling promotion getting by on a Hulk Hogan-like draw.  I don't see that happening again.  

 

 

I don't disagree with you on the whole but the WWE is the only company on Earth that thinks this way. New Japan had its greatest financial period on the back of a massive draw in Okada. Ring of Honor had its hottest period with the Young Bucks and business immediately collapsed when they left. Everyone's mileage may vary on where Adam Page's reign is in relation to his star power but the first three AEW champions were/are guys who have been proven money draws in this country and internationally. 

Every other company on Earth from Japan to Mexico and in between is trying to find that long-term ace to build business around. The WWE, to their credit, developed a model where it doesn't particularly matter.

 

[JohnnyJ]

For all of the WWE talk that the draw is the promotion and the parts interchangeable, AEW does a superior job of accomplishing this. They put the belt on a talent they believed in for a lengthy title reign even though I wouldn't categorize him as a draw and they consistently make lesser talents seem important. 

With respect to Brock, he had a fantastic run as a special attraction. It's important to keep in mind that he's now been back for a decade. You can only keep the aura and specialness for so long. 

 

 

[Hagan]

In regards to Roman as a draw: I mean, he's the biggest full-time star and SD is doing fine but he's not the draw Cena was. Cena came back and sold like a shit ton of tickets. WWE has been resorted to doing 2 for 1s lately on tix. They had to tease a surprise for an MSG house show to get it up to a respectable number.  Night 1 on Wrestlemania outdrew Night 2, right? 

It just seems that if Roman is a mega-star you don't need break glass on Steve Austin, Pat McAfee, Vince McMahon, Johnny Knoxville and Jake Paul to try to move tickets. 

[Log]

Is there a Roman Reigns Wrestlemania main event that doesn't involve a part-timer or legend that could "draw big money"?  Like, is there anyone on the roster that he could face that would generate ticket sales other than the "I'm going to Wrestlemania" ticket sales?  Do those kinds of ticket sales even exist for Wrestlemania?  Probably not, but indulge me here.

Anyone says Cody and I drive to your house and smack you.

[NoFistsJustFlips]

51 minutes ago, Hagan said:

In regards to Roman as a draw: I mean, he's the biggest full-time star and SD is doing fine but he's not the draw Cena was. Cena came back and sold like a shit ton of tickets. WWE has been resorted to doing 2 for 1s lately on tix. They had to tease a surprise for an MSG house show to get it up to a respectable number.  Night 1 on Wrestlemania outdrew Night 2, right? 

It just seems that if Roman is a mega-star you don't need break glass on Steve Austin, Pat McAfee, Vince McMahon, Johnny Knoxville and Jake Paul to try to move tickets. 

I mostly agree with you, but not on the celebrity WM involvement. That would be like saying well if Hogan was a mega-star in 1985 they wouldn't have needed Ali & Liberace and shit. Wrestlemania is based around celebrity involvement. So them using Johnny Knoxville or Logan Paul would have happened regardless of how many tickets sold or how popular the brand is / how big of a mega-star Roman is.