Can Anybody Really be Labeled a "Draw" These Days?

[OYDK]

A post on one of my previous threads got me thinking about the wrestlers of this era, and if any of them can legitimately be considered draws in the literal sense of the word. The "dictionary" definition of a draw is, a wrestler that attracts the attention of the audience or someone fans are willing to pay to see. That's a very simplified definition, but you get the gist.

Now somebody brought up the fact that WWE continuously brings in part-timers for Wrestlemania, and as a result, some full-timers are left out. Just this year we saw Sting, HHH, Taker, and Lesnar compete in high-profile matches while much of the roster was relegated to the ATG Battle Royal... now I'm not debating on how good Mania was this year or how much money these part timers bring in, but more on the fact that it's highly doubtful that a Mania with strictly full time talent could have drawn the same numbers. I find it odd that WWE mainly relies on guys such as The Rock, HHH, and Brock Lesnar to draw crowds nowadays whereas in the past eras, old-timers were seen as detrimental to the product. Guys like Stone Cold, Bruno Sammartino, Hulk Hogan and The Rock were able to draw thousands, sometimes over a hundred thousand people to one event almost by themselves. As good as John Cena is, I don't see him being able to do that, not even close... and John Cena is lightyears ahead of the rest when it comes to drawing ability. With the rumors of even more legends appearing at Mania 32, it leads me to believe that the WWE roster has a severe lack of draws.

I'm not just talking about the face of the company either, when it comes to drawing. Tag teams such as the NAO, the Freebirds, The Dudleys, E&C, and The Von Erichs' drew relatively high numbers... hell The Road Warriors were basically main eventers.. When was the last time a tag team drew you to an event? How about a full-time wrester? The point I'm trying to make is that, fans were seriously invested in the wrestlers of the past, but I don't think very many would dish out serious money for anyone on today's roster.

So, is the concept of judging wrestlers based on their drawing ability coming to an end? Other than arguably John Cena, can anybody really be called a "draw" today?

 

[Navi]

That was probably me pissing on about part timers taking up Wrestlemania spots, which does kind of bother me. But anyway on topic. With today's roster they should be able to sell out a huge stadium, but they can't. Why, it's creative, or lack there of. Nothing is consistent Vince seems to change his mind as quickly as he changes his underwear. One week the wrestler is a face, next week a heel, next week you never see him again. Okay that's an exaggeration but you get my drift.

Look at what's happened to wrestlers like Cesaro. Won the Battle Royal at Mania 30, was massively over with the crowd, they loved the swing, and boom, he's a heel. Next week he's a Paul Heyman guy, then Heyman dumps him, no more swing, no more crowd reaction. He becomes a jobber losing every single match he's in. The guy has superhuman strength, great moves, and none of it is utilized. Then he's paired with Kidd and what do you know you have a good tag team there. Once he goes back to singles wrestling, he'll be a jobber again.

Roman Reigns has the looks of a God, great physique and Vince loves him, and pushes him to the moon. Actually pushes him way to fast, and the crowd turns against him at the Rumble. He loses the match at Mania, which he should have, and now he's relegated to fighting Big Show all over Europe. And those are just two examples, there are many more on the roster. What a waste of talent.

And that's the point right there, the waste. They have such talented wrestlers on the roster, and waste most of them. If the WWE put half the effort, no a quarter of the effort into focusing on some of the others that they do with Cena, this product would be out of this world. They don't. Seems they have tunnel vision and can only deal with a few at a time. Which is a shame, cause everyone else gets left behind.

If booked properly this roster could sell out Cowboy Stadium next year, but we know it won't because other than Cena and Bryan, you have no one that fans will spend thousands of dollars to come and see. So they have to rely on the Austins, Rock's of this world to make the show a success. These roster members work their asses off the whole year and can't make it to the biggest show, simply because they aren't good enough to sell the tickets.

Sorry went off on a bit of a rant there.

 

[rbv13]

Interesting Topic. At first glance when I think of current day drawing power, names such as Lesnar, Rock, Sting, Taker, Austin and even Mr. McMahon himself rise to the top of the list. This is due to the fact of the rarity in which the fans get to see them. The opposite is the exact reason none of the full timer super stars have the same appeal. The market is over saturated with professional wrestling. WWE and beyond is on television seven nights a week. The genre produces fifteen plus hour a week. The problem is we see too much of these talents. Back in the day there was half the programming, a quarter of the special events and it was rare to see big time matches with big time stars. Go even further back to the territory days and it was even more a rarity to see something extraordinary.

In today’s world I see very little reason to attend a WWE or TNA live event. I get my fill with weekly programming. I will however jump at the chance to take in an NXT, ROH or Indy event. There are a handful of lesser known names I consider must see and will take full advantage of seeing when given the opportunity.

 

[Radical]

I say no.

I will say that The Rock and Brock Lesnar do help WWE draw usually higher ratings than usual but I don't think they are really 'huge draws' like the old days of young Rock, Austin, NWO, Hulk Hogan, Andre the Giant and Bruno Sammartino.

Why? Because the curtain has been drawn. Everyone knows 'how pro wrestling works' and so when Hulk Hogan was up against Andre the Giant people thought 'Wow, this is amazing! We don't get to see this type of match up in boxing, it's truly a special event we must see!" or when Bruno Sammartino was on a huge win streak with the belt for 7 years. Then even in the Attitude Era with Rock and Austin, the war with WCW was so extreme, even if that's when Vince had to come out and say it was scripted the action was so intense and wild that it was still a huge draw to see Austin do such crazy things on TV and NWO to 'take over' a show they way they did.

But today, there are also SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many more TV shows and not just that but ways to watch content. Netflix, YouTube, etc. Honestly, WWE still does very well in ratings considering how much stuff there is to watch.

But as far as any person being a real draw to pro wrestling? Not really. Maybe certain guys will draw more hardcore wrestling fans than others and maybe a few fringe wrestling fans back and forth but to really draw it would have to be a thing where you walk around town and in the restaurants and bars and gathering places you hear people saying "Wow, did you hear so and so is in WWE? I gotta see that!" and I don't hear that.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Like I said in the other post that touched on this, what exactly IS draw now? How does it compare to the past?

WWF/Wrestling of the 80's and early to mid 90's was a LIVE EVENT BUSINESS. TV was there to serve the box office, to entice people into arenas to watch rather than free on their TV. That is where most people get confused and still refer to draw... When Flair claims Bret "never drew a dime" he means he never sold the houses himself, alone... they may have still sold with help from guys like Taker, the houses were to an extent still selling just as Flair wasn't truly selling them himself, he was working with red hot opponents to sell them out.

Once Nitro happened the game changed, then it was about TV ratings FIRST... the live crowd was inconsequential as a paying concern as long as it looked full on TV... WCW papered so many shows it's embarrassing, you can't say any WCW guy drew in the traditional sense cos most seats were free/as part of the Disney/MGM tour.

But it became about who could make you tune into WWE over WCW or vice versa... and that never went away. Now WWE is a TV show ABOUT a wrestling company, filmed with a live audience...not a wrestling promotion looking to fill arenas...

No one can "draw" in that traditional sense in that medium... the closest ironically are the guys they don't WANT to push like Bryan... if Bryan doesn't appear, refunds are made. That's the only modern marker for if someone truly draws, if Chimmel or whoever makes the "X is unable to appear tonight, if you wish a refund, go and claim it now" 20 minutes before the show. That's who got "bums on seats love", but they care more about the TV audience who aren't paying or who are now on the Network rather than the live crowds... so the criteria for who is important isn't based on getting the people to an arena...if they need to they'll paper it.

 

[Navi]

The one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet but is of importance is the difference between Mania and everything else. Yes the WWE can sell out arena's of 20,000 people, but to sell out Cowboy Stadium you need bigger names on the roster.

The main reason being is you have to get the hardcore fans to get out to see the show. Mom's and Dad's will take their kids to house shows, and the RAW's and SD's but might draw the line at spending 1,000's of dollars to go to Mania. For most it involves time off work, travelling great distances, and if you have kids, taking them out of school for a week. Some parents might just say, enough is enough, not happening.

So you lose the fanbase that attends the house shows and local RAW's. To fill a huge stadium it has to be made up somewhere and that's where the hardcore fans come in. Fans that watch every week and even they won't spend thousands to see matches that they can see for free. So it's up to the WWE to up the ante, by bringing in the big guns.

So it's six of one, half dozen of the other. Mania only happens once a year and it is nothing like any of the other PPV's going today. It is filled with special appearances, because if you didn't have those special attractions, you wouldn't be able to get the fans out.

So to finally answer the OP's question, yes they have wrestlers on the roster than can draw, Cena, Bryan and others. They just don't have the wrestler's that can draw for a Wrestlemania, and that's the WWE wants. How do they fix the problem, start building up the wrestlers on the roster and make them count.

I'm not sure that made any sense, but it did to me.

 

[Bernkastel]

If you are talking about drawing in the historical sense, then no. No modern day wrestlers are draws. The WWE brand name is what draws all the attention and live houses and whatnot. Even a large percent of gates are now feed through sponsors and advertisements. Popularity can be measured in marketability though. And most superstars have at least a pinky toe dipped in that pool. I'd say Cena, Orton, and Lesnar are the big 3 in that regard. Though I see plenty of Ryback, Bryan, Reigns, and Ziggler gear too.

But yeah, marketing is the new form of "drawing" in this era. I'd say that applies to Austin and Rock too. In fact I'd name Hogan as wrestling's last "true" draw.

 

[Alastor]

It is difficult to compare numbers across different generations due to differences in technology , business model, economic conditions, fans expectations and so on. John Cena and Daniel Bryan are probably the two two guys that can be labelled as draws on the current roster based on today's expectations.

 

[Mustang Sally]

.... now I'm not debating on how good Mania was this year or how much money these part timers bring in, but more on the fact that it's highly doubtful that a Mania with strictly full time talent could have drawn the same numbers.

You're right...and it should be noted that the part-timers are lucky to have a slot on the show to give them a bit of exposure at the biggest event of the year .....and a share of the gate.....because I remember reading complaints in the past from "also-rans" who were left completely out of the proceedings. So, if they're present but not doing anything significant, at least it's better than the old days when they watched from backstage or stayed at home.

Face it, WM is the show for which WWE has to pull out all the stops since it provides the benchmark that starts the company on it's merry rounds for the year to come. It's ironic that WWE announces "season's premiere" episodes of Raw and Smackdown in September, because the real season actually starts the day after Wrestlemania.

But to attract the largest number of buys to the event and to sign up for the Network, WWE has long since learned it takes part-timers to get the job done; the days of the top full-timers headlining the show falls short of the results attained by including Rock, Hogan, Undertaker, etc. Mixing in a few guest stars to complement the regulars is a sound concept.

The only thing I would find discouraging is to have two part-timers headline the show, as in watching a Goldberg-Sting main event. That would be an admission that WWE's product can't sustain itself without help from the outside.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

I think WWE is the draw now.

Events sell out before a match card is even assembled. WrestleMania as a brand is the draw. RAW is the draw. It doesn't really matter what actually is booked for these events, tickets will be bought well in advance.

I think Vince has deliberately gone out of his way to make sure no one guy is the draw. He wants his company to be the draw, and he's succeeded at this.

Certainly, some guys can boost TV ratings or PPV buyrates more than others. A Brock Lesnar match, or Rock match, or Austin segment can boost buys. But this is only temporary. And even with that said, the WWE Network makes PPV buys irrelevant. Essentially, every "PPV" is viewed/could be viewed/is paid for by the same audience every month.

So no, I don't think anyone in the context of wrestling can be considered a draw. WWE is the draw.

 

[SoulTrain4]

WWE is the draw. The brand draws, individual performers only help. I don't know how many times we have to discuss "drawing" on here but wrestling's days of two guys being the primary reason people are watching or in attendance hasn't been true for decades, since at least the days of Bruno.

Now before people even say Hogan, realize Hogan didn't close that many shows. He actually performed early most times with tag teams or other guys closing. Crowds never left when Hogan left, they stayed for the rest of the show and that's very important as people do want to see the WHOLE SHOW not just one guy or one match.

 

[Hem]

The answer to your question is answered by the WWE trying to get all the legends on board for WM 32 so that they can sell 100,000 tickets.

No one on the roster alone can draw the way they used to back a few years ago. I think its a mixture of the product having cooled down as well as there being no earth shattering characters like Rock/SCSA/Hogan/Hart/HBK and so on.

Guys like Cena, Reigns, Bryan, Ambrose, Rollins, Wyatt all have it in them to become big draws but they have yet to shatter the ceiling and do something to completely incise the public and make them buy tickets.

I think the best shot at a draw, a major draw, is going to be the NXT guys. Specifically Finn Balor and Kevin Owens. I feel like even with a horrible card, the fans will tune in to see these guys due to there extraordinary talents.

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

Extreme Rules 2011 drew 216000 buys and Extreme Rules 2012, featuring the return of Brock Lesnar, drew 251000 buys. That is a pretty substantial increase. UFC pay-per-views headlined by Brock Lesnar draw over a million buys, which is definitely a huge number, much bigger than the vast majority of UFC PPVs. So I think it's fair to say that Brock Lesnar is a draw.

Aside from Lesnar, the WWE brand is the draw, WrestleMania specifically is the major draw.

 

[whoopin' ass]

yes and no. I compare wwe to movies today - once upon a time, a name alone was enough to sell a movie but today there is no one like that. However there are some names that people are more willing to watch if the trailer looks okay so if you get them in your movie, you might have a chance. wwe is like that - I don't think there is anyone who really draws for one reason or another but headlining a ppv with Cena will probably get more buys than most other guys so he is the closest thing you could have to a draw. Bryan is the same - if they handled him properly, he would be a draw but people are not willing to spend money to watch him get screwed over. It isn't like the old days where all you had to announce was Rock or Austin in the main event and you could pretty much guarantee x-number of buys. I don't think anyone has that kind of power anymore.

 

[Supreme Knowledge]

It's simple, the "Stars" of today are nothing compared to the "Stars" of yesterday. In all honesty, nobody on WWE outside of Lesnar and Cena are REALLY stars and big draws. Like someone above me stated, "WWE" is the draw now.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

It's not even that WWE is the draw... that's not accurate, otherwise what Vince is putting out without the legends/veterans would be making as much as the past.

WRESTLING is the draw and that's the elephant in the room Vince doesn't want to admit/address. Paul is doing that with NXT, signing great young WRESTLERS and making it "cool again" to like wrestling because "Sports Entertainment" isn't working as well anymore. Vince wants to believe and you to believe that his "Soap set in a Wrestling company" is a draw because he desperately doesn't want to be "just a wrestling promoter", he never has done and sadly it's to the detriment of his company. Look back to the days of Bruno, Hogan, Austin/Rock, Goldberg, the NWO... It was still wrestling at the heart of those eras...

 

[stingray11214]

The problem is there has not really been a draw in WWE since Sammartino. Even during Hogan's heyday, places like Madison Square Garden had a lot of empty seats. Even Backlund was a better draw than Hogan was. Hogan can toot his horn all he wants, he was NEVER the draw the latter two were. When VKM went "Sports Entertainment" in order to get the Athletic Commissions off his case, that was your end. They need to make everything like the Oscars in order to get people to shell out thousands for WM.

As for WWE being the selling point: Outside of the Northeast, where do they draw anything for a House Show? Just look at the numbers: 4000 here, 5000 there, 3800 over there. It comes off nowadays like American Idols LIVE! rather than a must see wrestling card. And, with all the choices that people have, why would people shell out the big money to see something where the outcome is RIDICULOUSLY telegraphed?

 

[Supreme Knowledge]

The problem is there has not really been a draw in WWE since Sammartino. Even during Hogan's heyday, places like Madison Square Garden had a lot of empty seats. Even Backlund was a better draw than Hogan was. Hogan can toot his horn all he wants, he was NEVER the draw the latter two were.

Absolutely ridiculous statement. Hogan is the reason Professional Wrestling exploded to new heights. Yes, he did become stale, until he exploded again in WCW during the NWO era. To say Hogan wasn't really a Draw is highly laughable. To say that there hasn't been a real draw since Sammartino is even more of an ignorant statement. WWE's most successful period was the Monday Night Wars era where Steve Austin was at the helm. I'm sorry, but Sammartino can't begin to touch Austin's drawing power at his peak. Austin, Rock, and Hogan were definitely major heavyweight draws. The guys that were not at Austin drawing status were even still good draws, the Shawn Michaels, Bret Harts, Kurt Angles, Mankinds, Sting's, ect.

 

[stingray11214]

Absolutely ridiculous statement. Hogan is the reason Professional Wrestling exploded to new heights. Yes, he did become stale, until he exploded again in WCW during the NWO era. To say Hogan wasn't really a Draw is highly laughable. To say that there hasn't been a real draw since Sammartino is even more of an ignorant statement. WWE's most successful period was the Monday Night Wars era where Steve Austin was at the helm. I'm sorry, but Sammartino can't begin to touch Austin's drawing power at his peak. Austin, Rock, and Hogan were definitely major heavyweight draws. The guys that were not at Austin drawing status were even still good draws, the Shawn Michaels, Bret Harts, Kurt Angles, Mankinds, Sting's, ect.

We are not talking about for the TV show, we are talking about people plunking down hard-earned cash for live events. THAT was what was considered a "draw". And, yes, Sammartino sold out Madison Square Garden 286 times during his career. And, this was when he was NOT reliant on a TV show, or T shirts, or Slim Jims. As it was mentioned above, WCW papered a lot of seats during Nitro. They went for RATINGS, not ASSES IN THE SEATS.

As for Austin, same applies: He relied on a the marketing machine. He had a lot more in place than Sammartino ever did, and STILL could not touch Sammartino in drawing power. Sammartino, in the NY area, if you want to base it on a TV show alone, had one show on a SPANISH-LANGUAGE channel for a time. And, you need to remember, it was a time that when you wanted to see the Champion perform, you had to PAY to see it, Sammartino STILL sold out Madison Square Garden, the Spectrum, and Boston Garden. Could Austin have done THAT? Could the Rock? Cena? With only a blurb during All-Star Wrestling? "This Monday night at Madison Square Garden, WWWF Champion Steve Austin/Rock/John Cena will wrestle Spiros Arion, the Number 1 Contender for the WWWF Championship." And that is all he would have gotten I rest my case.

 

[Bernkastel]

I'm sorry, but Sammartino can't begin to touch Austin's drawing power at his peak.

And neither can Hogan or anyone else. But if we take the 2 years that Austin was a mega draw and put that against the 10 something years Hogan drew big or the 20 years Sammartino was a huge drawing card, then who brought in more people overall? The older guys.

If you are taking this from a marketability standpoint then Austin would beat both combined, but then he's inferior to John Cena.

It's simple, the "Stars" of today are nothing compared to the "Stars" of yesterday. In all honesty, nobody on WWE outside of Lesnar and Cena are REALLY stars and big draws. Like someone above me stated, "WWE" is the draw now.

Cena isn't really a draw, he's just really highly marketable. There is a difference. Drawing power refers to selling tickets and putting butts in seats. Cena doesn't do this. The WWE brand does. And how is Lesnar a draw when he only works 6 dates a year? Any big name star worth their salt can bolster interest on one or two select shows a year when they are being booked like Andre the Giant. Lesnar already demonstrated that he can't draw as a full time wrestler a decade ago. WWE keeps him working select shows part time because they don't need to rely on whatever star power he might bring as a full time wrestler. He isn't bigger than their brand.

 

[Supreme Knowledge]

We are not talking about for the TV show, we are talking about people plunking down hard-earned cash for live events. THAT was what was considered a "draw". And, yes, Sammartino sold out Madison Square Garden 286 times during his career. And, this was when he was NOT reliant on a TV show, or T shirts, or Slim Jims. As it was mentioned above, WCW papered a lot of seats during Nitro. They went for RATINGS, not ASSES IN THE SEATS.

As for Austin, same applies: He relied on a the marketing machine. He had a lot more in place than Sammartino ever did, and STILL could not touch Sammartino in drawing power. Sammartino, in the NY area, if you want to base it on a TV show alone, had one show on a SPANISH-LANGUAGE channel for a time. And, you need to remember, it was a time that when you wanted to see the Champion perform, you had to PAY to see it, Sammartino STILL sold out Madison Square Garden, the Spectrum, and Boston Garden. Could Austin have done THAT? Could the Rock? Cena? With only a blurb during All-Star Wrestling? "This Monday night at Madison Square Garden, WWWF Champion Steve Austin/Rock/John Cena will wrestle Spiros Arion, the Number 1 Contender for the WWWF Championship." And that is all he would have gotten I rest my case.

This would require lots of research and access to numbers, statistics, ect to break this down, because you're SEVERLY underrating Steve Austin and Hulk Hogan. So you're basically saying Austin and Hogan didn't put butts in seats? I hope that is not what you're saying, cause then you would be disqualifying yourself from this argument for such a statement. Austin and Hogan were over because of the Marketing Machine? So you're trying to discredit Austin and Hogan for having television access? Austin and Hogan were over because they were who people wanted to see. Austin and Hogan absolutely put mass amounts of butts in seats.

 

[Supreme Knowledge]

And neither can Hogan or anyone else. But if we take the 2 years that Austin was a mega draw and put that against the 10 something years Hogan drew big or the 20 years Sammartino was a huge drawing card, then who brought in more people overall? The older guys.

If you are taking this from a marketability standpoint then Austin would beat both combined, but then he's inferior to John Cena.



Cena isn't really a draw, he's just really highly marketable. There is a difference. Drawing power refers to selling tickets and putting butts in seats. Cena doesn't do this. The WWE brand does. And how is Lesnar a draw when he only works 6 dates a year? Any big name star worth their salt can bolster interest on one or two select shows a year when they are being booked like Andre the Giant. Lesnar already demonstrated that he can't draw as a full time wrestler a decade ago. WWE keeps him working select shows part time because they don't need to rely on whatever star power he might bring as a full time wrestler. He isn't bigger than their brand.

That wasn't the argument, he said that there hasn't been a REAL draw since Sammartino, which is absolutely ridiculous and false.

Cena isn't really a draw? WHAT!?........You guys can't be serious when you write this stuff. Right now, yes WWE is a brand that brings viewers because of its name, but over Cena's career he ABSOLUTELY put butts in seats and continues to do so. I would say more so than Rock or Austin. For some reason you guys seem to think that merchandise is a complete separate entity outside of ticket sales, which is also a ridiculous assessment. Fans buy merchandise of the performers they enjoy and come to see. You think WWE would have stayed the course the exact same without Cena? Without bringing back in Part time stars? Not even close. You think the reaction that Cena has gotten over the years means nothing and fans don't pay to come see him? Using your logic, you think WWE could fire the entire roster, go grab some random guys from New Japan, ROH, CZW, put them in random Tag Team/Diva/and Main event spots and WWE will continue to thrive the same as usual......? No Way. Cena, Rock, Austin, and Hogan were some of the BIGGEST draws in professional wrestling history.

 

[Bernkastel]

Cena isn't really a draw? WHAT!?........You guys can't be serious when you write this stuff.

Uh, no. He's not. Cena averages like 6600 a gate for live attendance on house shows that he's headlined over the past 5 years. A figure that is down about 1000 in 2014. 6600 would have been considered to be a low draw for an average even as far back as the 1920's.

Right now, yes WWE is a brand that brings viewers because of its name, but over Cena's career he ABSOLUTELY put butts in seats and continues to do so.

Not really. Compared to the butts that the WWE brand name puts into seats his figures are minimal. Cena's strong suit has always been his marketability.

I would say more so than Rock or Austin.

No, that would be false. Cena is easily more marketable than either of those two though.

For some reason you guys seem to think that merchandise is a complete separate entity outside of ticket sales, which is also a ridiculous assessment.

It is if you're comparing Cena to someone like Sammartino, where marketing concepts that exist today didn't back then. It's like saying well Hogan and Austin drew higher TV ratings than Cena so they're better. Doesn't work that way. Comparing TV ratings across eras isn't feasible and neither is marketing.

What is feasible is putting butts in seats because fans continue to watch live shows. When that stops when we're all watching wrestling in some 4D reality 100 years in the future the drawing power argument will no longer be feasible.

Fans buy merchandise of the performers they enjoy and come to see. You think WWE would have stayed the course the exact same without Cena?

Yeah, which is why nearly every pro wrestler has at least a pinky toe dipped into the marketing pool.

Without bringing back in Part time stars? Not even close. You think the reaction that Cena has gotten over the years means nothing and fans don't pay to come see him?

They paid to watch the entire show. However there is truth that shows headlined by Cena will draw better than shows headlined by Kane or Big Show, but compared to Hogan or Sammartino or even Austin or Rock it's not close.

Using your logic, you think WWE could fire the entire roster, go grab some random guys from New Japan, ROH, CZW, put them in random Tag Team/Diva/and Main event spots and WWE will continue to thrive the same as usual......? No Way. Cena, Rock, Austin, and Hogan were some of the BIGGEST draws in professional wrestling history.

That's not my logic. Not even close. And those 3 [barring Hogan] were no where near the drawing cards that their predecessors were. Trying to say that they were is just stupid.

 

[Supreme Knowledge]

Uh, no. He's not. Cena averages like 6600 a gate for live attendance on house shows that he's headlined over the past 5 years. A figure that is down about 1000 in 2014. 6600 would have been considered to be a low draw for an average even as far back as the 1920's.



Not really. Compared to the butts that the WWE brand name puts into seats his figures are minimal. Cena's strong suit has always been his marketability.



No, that would be false. Cena is easily more marketable than either of those two though.



It is if you're comparing Cena to someone like Sammartino, where marketing concepts that exist today didn't back then. It's like saying well Hogan and Austin drew higher TV ratings than Cena so they're better. Doesn't work that way. Comparing TV ratings across eras isn't feasible and neither is marketing.

What is feasible is putting butts in seats because fans continue to watch live shows. When that stops when we're all watching wrestling in some 4D reality 100 years in the future the drawing power argument will no longer be feasible.



Yeah, which is why nearly every pro wrestler has at least a pinky toe dipped into the marketing pool.



They paid to watch the entire show. However there is truth that shows headlined by Cena will draw better than shows headlined by Kane or Big Show, but compared to Hogan or Sammartino or even Austin or Rock it's not close.



That's not my logic. Not even close. And those 3 [barring Hogan] were no where near the drawing cards that their predecessors were. Trying to say that they were is just stupid.

Well WWE is pretty bland now compared to before so its not just a Cena thing but could you provide these numbers stating this? Covering the last 5 years please.

Now when I said arguably more than Austin or Rock, that's because Cena has way more time on top carrying the company in this dying age longer than both men, way longer actually. Saying he doesn't put butts in seats is laughable but that's your opinion for some reason.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Cena averages like 6600 a gate for live attendance on house shows that he's headlined over the past 5 years. A figure that is down about 1000 in 2014.

Okay, but couldn't it be argued that the decrease in 2014 coincides with the company not featuring Cena as much as they used to? If they've been giving others top billing (which they have) and placing Cena lower on the card.....and the gate drops by 1000 in 2014, isn't it reasonable to presume Cena's "demotion" is at least partly the cause for the drop?

It's ironic that Cena's having been the main draw for so many years is now working against him and his employer. Apparently, every form of entertainment has a shelf life, no matter how big and seemingly invulnerable they've been. Yes, there are still plenty of people cheering Cena, yet all we read is how others hate him and are bored with him.

He's simply been #1 for too long. It's a sad fact of show business. If gate receipts shrink too much, perhaps WWE will finally pull the trigger and turn him bad. If the folks who are down on him want to see alterations to his act, that would do it.

Then, watch him draw.