Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

APRIL 2022 WRESTLING DISCUSSION


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, JohnnyJ said:

The fade was caused by WCW poaching two main eventers and catching lightning in a bottle with the NWO. I don't know how you can blame Shawn/Bret for that. 

Oh - you can’t. But neither of them were part of the antidote, either (one of them actively wasn’t).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, A_K said:

Oh - you can’t. But neither of them were part of the antidote, either (one of them actively wasn’t).

Bret's feud with Austin, as @sabremikenoted, absolutely was part of the antidote. In the short term, RAW did way more high-twos than low-twos in the ratings. Generally look at where ratings were in early 1996 and then especially mid-1996 (after the nWo was formed) compared to mid/late-1997, and there's stabilization that you have to attribute at least in part to Bret.

He also helped to make Austin and Vince McMahon massively (even if he didn't do it for the latter in the way that he might have expected), and those two along with The Rock basically turned business all the way around in 1998 and 1999. 

As for Bret's WCW run, having read @Gorman's awesome PPV reports in the WWE Network Conversation thread and having recently watched some shows from around that time because of them, you can retrospectively see WCW starting to cool off at the tail end of 1997 and, outside of the rise of Goldberg in 1998 (which was then booked into the ground as soon as he became the world champ), WCW's quality and booking declines rapidly once '98 hits, as soon as Bret arrived, and Bret was not particularly protected, either.

Edited by SirSmellingtonofCascadia
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, SirSmellingtonofCascadia said:

Bret's feud with Austin, as @sabremikenoted, absolutely was part of the antidote. In the short term, RAW did way more high-twos than low-twos in the ratings. Generally look at where ratings were in early 1996 and then especially mid-1996 (after the nWo was formed) compared to mid/late-1997, and there's stabilization that you have to attribute at least in part to Bret.

He also helped to make Austin and Vince McMahon massively (even if he didn't do it for the latter in the way that he might have expected), and those two along with The Rock basically turned business all the way around in 1998 and 1999. 

As for Bret's WCW run, having read @Gorman's awesome PPV reports in the WWE Network Conversation thread and having recently watched some shows from around that time because of them, you can retrospectively see WCW starting to cool off at the tail end of 1997 and, outside of the rise of Goldberg in 1998 (which was then booked into the ground as soon as he became the world champ), WCW's quality and booking declines rapidly once '98 hits, as soon as Bret arrived, and Bret was not particularly protected, either.

Well what I would say is that Hart left, when, November' 97? They did their highest number in several years the night after (makes sense - big story point). In the 2 years immediately thereafter, I believe they recorded only 1 show with a lower rating than the prior 2 years before he moved off. Given this was still some time before the Austin coming-out party at WM w/ Tyson, that's pretty remarkable. There was absolutely no drop off - nothing, on any show, whatsoever. The SS '96 bout w/ Austin (heralded as, critically, one of the greats) basically had ratings identical to the months preceding, topped out in the mid-2's, and they'd be back in the 1s again by December / January '96. Objectively, there's nothing there that says Bret/Austin made the Stone Cold momentum .. if everyone is being honest with themselves, they'll admit it was the McMahon/Austin narrative really. Conversely, WCW had a 10% or so pop after Starrcade '97 but that'd flag pretty quickly, and come the winter they'd never really mount the heights they'd set back in autumn '97. Honestly, the Canadian element probably held Hart back from being a face-of-the-promotion lead in the US in the atmosphere of the 90s vs a full blooded Texan.

Its a pretty interesting conversation, because it seems that the more time passes, the more prevalent the impact BH/SM are perceived to have (I don't remember any of these tributes to impact back in the early-mid-2000s when Hart was out of the industry and Michaels would periodically pop up as a novelty GM or guest referee character prior to his comeback tour). But objectively speaking? Yeah, never really led the pack commercially.

Edited by A_K
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, A_K said:

Objectively, there's nothing there that says Bret/Austin made the Stone Cold momentum .. if everyone is being honest with themselves, they'll admit it was the McMahon/Austin narrative really. 

Objectively, there absolutely is, in that McMahon/Austin was propelled by all the work that Bret did to help put both of those characters in position to capitalize on a feud between them. 

I think that, generally, the people who are talking about the impact that either man had on the business is not talking about drawing or ratings. They're talking about style and tropes that all the millennials who got into wrestling because they were fans growing up latched onto. This is especially true of Shawn, who actually got to implement his "play to the back of the room" ideas onto NXT in a leadership position. 

I don't think anyone here is arguing that Bret or Shawn were secretly somehow bigger draws than they were. Maybe we're talking at cross-purposes a bit. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KingM said:

Eddie Guerrero is the lowest drawing WWE World Champion of all time. Kofi didn't do so good either. Doesn't matter anyways, when your company can take the business hits sometimes and survives and is the only real big game, you can focus on whatever you want. 

2 hours ago, KingM said:

Everybody did. 

Surprisingly Jake Swagger or whatever his name was did good as a draw.


2005 Smackdown was drawing less than 1995 WWE? 2005 Smackdown was drawing less than 2010 Smackdown with Swagger or 2018 with Jinder? I need proof. Where are the sources your using for this? It could be true but I gotta see that for myself. WWE as a brand was still hot enough in 2005 that I would assume even the B brand was drawing better than almost out of business 1995 WWE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not my job to spoonfeed you when several other websites reported it, it's your job to know it and you are living in the search your own info age. You also need to really tone down your gimmick, I find it extremely rude.

Here bunch of the many links just for you though  https://www.thesportster.com/news/lowest-drawing-wwe-champion-ever/#:~:text=An extensive study into live,drawing champions of all time.

https://www.therichest.com/wrestling/the-15-wwe-champions-you-didnt-know-drew-low-ratings/

https://www.pwmania.com/forbes-picks-up-story-about-worst-drawing-wwe-champions

Low in most of the metrics combined.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, KingM said:

Not my job to spoonfeed you when several other websites reported it, it's your job to know it and you are living in the search your own info age. You also need to really tone down your gimmick, I find it extremely rude.

Pretty sure it's no one's "job" here to know what the ratings were from 12, 17 or 27 years ago. If anything, if someone makes a claim, it's on them to support those claim with facts.

And with all due respect, @NoFistsJustFlipswasn't being rude. Settle down lol.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, KingM said:

Not my job to spoonfeed you when several other websites reported it, it's your job to know it and you are living in the search your own info age. You also need to really tone down your gimmick, I find it extremely rude.

Here bunch of the many links just for you though  https://www.thesportster.com/news/lowest-drawing-wwe-champion-ever/#:~:text=An extensive study into live,drawing champions of all time.

https://www.therichest.com/wrestling/the-15-wwe-champions-you-didnt-know-drew-low-ratings/

https://www.pwmania.com/forbes-picks-up-story-about-worst-drawing-wwe-champions

Low in most of the metrics combined.

Actually, the person who makes the claim has the responsibility of supporting it with evidence, but do you. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, KingM said:

Not my job to spoonfeed you when several other websites reported it, it's your job to know it and you are living in the search your own info age. You also need to really tone down your gimmick, I find it extremely rude.

Wow and you say I was rude? Well I apologize if you found my comment rude. I wasn't taking a shot at you personally or calling you inaccurate. I was, in a conversationalist tone, saying that's crazy I don't believe that without seeing it. Not calling you out. No gimmick here my man. I'm just a dude. Not a perfect dude or anyone special. Just a dude. Like everyone else here. (Except for the few women we have here lol).

-

As for the sources you provided...

The first is based on a Twitter user's spreadsheet. It links to the user's post but it is now unavailable to view. So I couldn't verify any of his data. Source one essentially boils down to some guy on Twitter without being able to view the data. So let's chuck that one out. It very well could be super accurate data, but I want to view it myself. I'm sure you understand me no longer wanting to be spoon fed.

The second link cites no sources. And doesn't even list them in any order specific. It's a generic Top 15 list without any data other than saying these guys drew lower than you thought. Eddie is 15 out of 15. Diesel is 1 out of 15. Is 15 the worst or is 1 the worst? No way to determine that through reading the article. No data to verify here either. So Chucking this one out.

Source three is PWMania.com (via Forbes). This article is based on the same Twitter user's data from source one. So again can't use this to verify anything. No data to view. Very well could be accurate but I wish to no longer be spoon fed.

-

Have anything other than some guy named "nWoWolfPacTV" on Twitter who's data I can't even view for myself? It's especially confusing because source one uses the same data as source three, but source one says Kofi is breaking records as champion and source three says "Kofi Kingston and Seth Rollins are two of the most beloved stars in WWE, but they haven’t drawn well as world champions". So I'm confused by two polar opposite interpretations of the same data.

According to my own Google search I've found varying answers depending on the site. None of them have any actual data sourced besides that user on Twitter. Sportskeeda says Diesel. What Culture says Diesel. Bleecher Report says Vince McMahon. Mandatory.com says Diesel.

(Apologies if this came off rude to you as well. Not my intention.)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm interested in what criteria would be used to mathematically prove "the worst". smallest houses (revenue or attendance)? lowest ratings? fewest ppv buys? least twitter/google searches? and how do you determine which factor overrules another? 

how does someone with a short reign correlate to a long run on top?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And haven’t we seen lots of historical data, like attendances, is unreliable? 
 

do you trust promoters? Newspapers? Not with certainty. 

Edited by odessasteps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only that, WWE's business goes up and down seasonally. A 2 month world title reign during the NFL season is going to be handicapped compared to one between the Rumble and Mania.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NoFistsJustFlips said:

What's the protocol on posting DMs in the threads? Is it allowed? I'll like to post the convo I just had to save us all some time. 🙄

Some will do it without really giving a shit one way or the other. Personally unless the person is kind of crazy I think its a bit unfair, especially if they were DMing to avoid spamming the thread with conflict. We only have 5 days left. Why risk getting the thread closed by annoying RIPPA and/or Dolfin?

Edited by Eivion
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing as only one guy in history bodyslammed an actual giant so hard he died in front of 900,000 people at the Superdome, which lead to the place actually having to be shut down and the international dateline being re-evaluated, I don't think the numbers are going to be fair. 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, GuerrillaMonsoon said:

Seeing as only one guy in history bodyslammed an actual giant so hard he died in front of 900,000 people at the Superdome, which lead to the place actually having to be shut down and the international dateline being re-evaluated, I don't think the numbers are going to be fair. 

Speaking in my official capacity as a statistical analyst...

*clears throat*

Numbers are bullshit.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stefanie the Human said:

Speaking in my official capacity as a statistical analyst...

*clears throat*

Numbers are bullshit.

What’s really important is not dropping your selling of limbwork when it’s time to get your stuff in.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...