Does ratings and PPV buyrates mean quality in wrestling?

[klunderbunker]

See that i'm not taking a spot in the thing because I can't give a REAL answer for that, so you should have said:

"I believe that you are wrong, my opinion on the matter is that the Hulkster was more popular because he created his immortal character in that mentioned time and because they dropped the ball right after they saw how much of a fluke Warrior's was."

Those are facts, it happened and can be used to make people believe in what you say since it would be a good logic, and that's the only thing that makes me find your posts absolutely crap, because you say things and just forgets to back it up as you should.

Just.....no.

 

[Con T.]

For the record I wrote this post in the 2012 WZ tournament

According to Kayfabe Memories, it's pretty bad, at least by the era of Hogan's standards. The following are the house shows during 1990-91. A few things worth noting;

This isn't including PPV attendance.

This isn't counting house shows outside of the US. Course, not like Warrior was the top draw for either of these instances. Summerslam was billed as Hogan's return, Survivor Series was billed on the match type, so was Royal Rumble. The annual Europe house shows were billed as Andre being there; if anything, he was the main draw. But, here's the numbers.

1990:

Hogan draws 21 dates, with an average attendance of 11,043

Warrior draws 90 dates, with an average attendance of 6,552

1991:

Warrior draws 3 dates, with an average attendance of 7,265

Slaughter draws 12 dates, with an average attendance of 8,158

Hogan draws 46 dates, with an average attendance of 8,402

It should also be noted that the next reign, Ric Flair's, drew an average attendance of 6,635 fans, for 31 dates.


Why is this so interesting? Because Flair's first reign, at least internally, was considered a disaster. It was so bad, Flair and Hogan was dropped at the Mania program, and we got the double main event.

Flair actually did better as champion as Warrior. Does that give you an idea how bad his title run was deemed?

Warrior was supposed to be the next big star, and they dropped him like a bad habit

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

For the record I wrote this post in the 2012 WZ tournament

Ultimate Warrior was a bigger draw before winning the belt from Hogan at Wrestlemania 6. He was as over as Hulk Hogan in popularity before Wrestlemania 6.

 

[klunderbunker]

Ultimate Warrior was a bigger draw before winning the belt from Hogan at Wrestlemania 6. He was as over as Hulk Hogan in popularity before Wrestlemania 6.

I'm not here anymore.

I'm over here now.

You blew me away.​

 

[Con T.]

Ultimate Warrior was a bigger draw before winning the belt from Hogan at Wrestlemania 6. He was as over as Hulk Hogan in popularity before Wrestlemania 6.

I.... I.... I don't even.

Ok, then riddle me this;

Wrestlemania 5 did 767,000 buys.

Wrestlemania 6 did 550,000

The constant in both of those events was Hogan; so tell me, why was the Mania 6 buyrate lower?

 

[Hard Hit Prince]

I'll say this, and if you disagree, you're wrong. Nobody pays to watch programming which is not entertaining.

Yes, but you can't also disagree that great wrestling shows or great wrestling pay-per-views didn't had good results even though they were great.

I don't think Haiku Hogan is saying that a particular PPV is bad because the people who decided to purchase the event before it happened was lower than the previous year.

He is really saying that.

That's completely false.
They are the biggest stars because they are the most entertaining. That's what makes them "stars".

The most entertaining for whom? For more than 50%? Sure! But they are not the most entertaining for me, so what, I can't have an opinion?

You cannot be popular in pro wrestling without being entertaining. For fuck's sake, pro wrestling IS entertainment. They sell entertainment. People may have different ideas of what is entertaining (for example, some may think guys with huge muscles punching each other is entertaining while others may think little guys doing flips is entertaining), but at the end of the day, if you're not entertaining, you'll never be popular.

To argue otherwise is simply foolish, and shows a serious lack of in-depth thought on the subject.

A guy can be entertaining without being popular... Believe it or not, I strongly believe that Yoshi Tatsu has fans that find him entertaining, so he's popular now?

Not really, because you're comparing 2001 and 2002...the landscape of entertainment didn't change rapidly in the span of 12 months.

Actually in those years it really did as WCW died and stars like Austin and Rock starting to lose some space for people like Kurt Angle, Triple H and Brock Lesnar sometime later.

I've been posting on wrestling message boards for over 7 and a half years now (holy fuck, has it really been that long?). I'm well aware of what the IWC thinks is entertaining, and how so often that does not match what the rest of the wrestling audience thinks is entertaining.

Good for you, and yes I don't believe that the fact you have a wrestling forum makes you more wiser about the product

No, having a wrong opinion means your wrong. When you try to claim popularity has nothing to do with entertainment level, you're wrong.

There are no wrong opinions... That's why they are opinions. A guy can say that David Otunga is the best athlete in the world. Unless you made him take some tests (which you can't), your opinion as the same value as the other guy.

This is completely false. Wrestling is not all around subjective, in fact, it's highly OBJECTIVE. We have many criteria for determining quality, and we are provide various pieces of evidence and statistics to debate those criteria.

Oh really, how can you say that CM Punk is the best promeur if there are people that think Cena is the best on the mic? How can you say that CM Punk is the best wrestler in the world, if others believe that Daniel Bryan is? I mean it's SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS. You can't tell me that CM Punk's delivery feels more real, because it's your opinion, get it? I could not believe your opinion.

Completely false. Pro wrestling is not like pro sports.

The reason Rock and Austin were so popular is because they were extremely entertaining. There's a reason business trended downward after they left. The reason is because they were two of the greatest ever. They brought an entertainment value the guys replacing them simply did not have. Which is not to say the guys replacing them were not entertaining, but simply they weren't as entertaining as Rock and Austin.

So you are actually saying that nobody could think that Austin and Rock were boring back in 2002? Because I watched a show some time ago that you can clearly hear a fan saying "Oh not that crap again, we've seen it TWO TIMES" referencing Rock vs. Austin at WM.

Maybe they could, but it wouldn't be AS good of a product. That's the point.

Despite the commonly held IWC belief, pro wrestlers are not disposable. Not every wrestler is as good as the next. If we could make any and every body into the next Hulk Hogan, then we'd have 15 Hulk Hogans in the WWE. There are simply guys who are superior than others, just like in any other profession.

How can you know that WWE wouldn't create better stories without Cena and CM Punk? Even though they left, the guys that I mentioned could have a BETTER product than when they actually had them in the company. Take Bret Hart, after he left, WWE just started to be actually cool to watch.

Undoubtedly it will.

It won't for me since I find Cena and CM Punk rather boring, so what now?

Luckily for you, I don't do that, otherwise you'd be on my Ignore list with many other posters.

Luckily? I couldn't give a flying fuck to be honest.

Yes, but what the opinion you posted here is wrong.

How is that wrong?

I've provided you facts, logic and proof. Stubbornly holding onto an opinion which fails the logic test is never something to be proud of.

And I replied with facts, logic and proofs so you just think you are right for the sake of it.

 

[Con T.]

For the record, if you're going to talk about what I said, it doesn't help when you ignore my posts, because I've proven you an idiot.

Because Slyfox is right, you see

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

I.... I.... I don't even.

Ok, then riddle me this;

Wrestlemania 5 did 767,000 buys.

Wrestlemania 6 did 550,000

The constant in both of those events was Hogan; so tell me, why was the Mania 6 buyrate lower?

Wrestlemania 6 did 550,000 buys

Wrestlemania 7 did 400,000

The constant in both of those events was Hogan; so tell me, why was the Mania 7 buyrate lower?

 

[klunderbunker]

Wrestlemania 6 did 550,000 buys

Wrestlemania 7 did 400,000

The constant in both of those events was Hogan; so tell me, why was the Mania 7 buyrate lower?

Because there was zero doubt as to who was winning in 91 and a big doubt as to who was winning in 1990. Really not that complicated. Also Warrior was on top for most of 1990 and tanked the company.

 

[Con T.]

Wrestlemania 6 did 550,000 buys

Wrestlemania 7 did 400,000

The constant in both of those events was Hogan; so tell me, why was the Mania 7 buyrate lower?

Probably because WWF really turned off fans with that whole Gulf War matter. Again, circumstances can change business; there weren't the same circumstantial changes during 5 & 6.

Oh, and Hogan was facing Sergeant Slaughter; who was going to buy Slaughter beating Hogan. why should I blame Hogan, when he's the greatest draw in the history of wrestling?

 

[Hard Hit Prince]

Because there was zero doubt as to who was winning in 91 and a big doubt as to who was winning in 1990. Really not that complicated. Also Warrior was on top for most of 1990 and tanked the company.

How can you know that? You read someone saying that also? You can't get the feeling back. More, those tools to represent popularity is SOMETHING none of us here can use, so none of us can be right or wrong since we don't have facts and just opinions. People just need to choose what they want to believe in.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

Probably because WWF really turned off fans with that whole Gulf War matter. Again, circumstances can change business; there weren't the same circumstantial changes during 5 & 6.

Oh, and Hogan was facing Sargeant Slaughter. Hogan is a proven draw; why should I blame Hogan, when he's the greatest draw in the history of wrestling?

Steve Austin is the greatest draw in the history of Wrestling.

 

[klunderbunker]

How can you know that? You read someone saying that also? You can't get the feeling back. More, those tools to represent popularity is SOMETHING none of us here can use, so none of us can be right or wrong since we don't have facts and just opinions. People just need to choose what they want to believe in.

Because unlike you, we have a more functional brain than an old tire. That's how.

 

[FlexAmerican Dynamite]

PWF and The History should form a tag team.

 

[klunderbunker]

Steve Austin is the greatest draw in the history of Wrestling.

Again, no. He had a hotter streak, but Hogan is the biggest draw over the course of wrestling history. Austin had a hotter stretch of about 3-4 years, but overall, it's Hogan and there's no arguing that.

 

[Con T.]

Steve Austin is the greatest draw in the history of Wrestling.

Austin had two great years of drawing, but he didn't even do the best year of business of the Attitude Era; that'd be 2000, a year he was largely gone for with neck surgery. Hogan, on the other hand, had seven years as the unquestioned man; fuck off with that.

 

[klunderbunker]

PWF and The History should form a tag team.

I keep meaning to check if they're alts because it's impossible for two people to be this dense.

 

[klunderbunker]

Austin had two great years of drawing, but he didn't even do the best year of business of the Attitude Era; that'd be 2000, a year he was largely gone for with neck surgery. Hogan, on the other hand, had seven years as the unquestioned man; fuck off with that.

Not counting those years in WCW where he lead them to having WWF dead and buried.

 

[Hard Hit Prince]

Because unlike you, we have a more functional brain than an old tire. That's how.

Lol of course you do, you're a genius that say crap without facts to prove it, so shut up and take your spot as one more stupid guy part of the IWC. I say you're an asshole because my functional brain says that so that makes me right. U mad?

 

[klunderbunker]

Lol of course you do, you're a genius that say crap without facts to prove it, so shut up and take your spot and one more stupid guy part of the IWC. I say you're an asshole because my functional brain says that so that makes me right. U mad?

No. I'm relieved actually. You mentioned that English isn't your first language, which implies you're from a foreign country. I'm relieved to know that whatever country that is, America is clearly much smarter.

 

[Con T.]

Not counting those years in WCW where he lead them to having WWF dead and buried.

Oh yeah, that too.

ProWrestlingFan, I'd love to know this; if Hogan wasn't that great, why did Vince always keep coming back to him?

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

Oh yeah, that too.

ProWrestlingFan, I'd love to know this; if Hogan wasn't that great, why did Vince always keep coming back to him?

When did I say Hogan wasn't great? Hulk Hogan is one of the biggest stars in Pro-Wrestling.

 

[Hard Hit Prince]

I keep meaning to check if they're alts because it's impossible for two people to be this dense.

That unknown force that makes you believe you're right in every type of discussion you enter is quite a treat. You can't give any facts to prove your stupid theories, you can't tell me the reasons for Warrior getting over, you can't say if Steve Austin actually sold more t-shirts or made more people interested in the WWF than NWO made for WCW, you'll look like a fool by doing it, i guess you'll say common sense and probably some financial papers can prove otherwise and there is no way you can know that, so as long as there are chances for you to get wrong, you an't claim to know the truth.

And the whole point of this thread is one simple question:
Does ratings and PPV buyrates mean quality in wrestling? The answer is no, because NONE of you can disagree with the fact that good shows sometimes have really bad ratings and that great PPV's sometimes have shitty buys.

WrestleMania 28 was the most sold PPV by the WWF, does that mean that WM28 is the best wrestlemania of all time? NO and that's the whole point of the thread, you're idiotic opinions about Hogan and Warrior being more over than other are just that, idiotic.

 

[Con T.]

Once again, that isn't my argument at all; you're a ******

 

[klunderbunker]

Oh yeah, that too.

ProWrestlingFan, I'd love to know this; if Hogan wasn't that great, why did Vince always keep coming back to him?

Or that time where his arrival in TNA drew their highest TV rating yet, which has never been surpassed or even tied.

I grew up a Hulkamaniac, and while I can't stand a lot of the stuff Hogan does, the man is a larger than life character that is going to attract an audience no matter what he does. Look at those Rent-A-Center commercials he did. Hogan, a guy who is on a show that roughly a million people a week watch, was teamed up with the leader of the most popular football team of the 90s and a guy seen every week by tens of millions of people for a national commercial. That says a lot. Do you see Austin getting those commercials? No. You see him making B level action movies that not a lot of people watch.

Hogan is the biggest draw ever and there's really no arguing that. Correction: there's no logically arguing that.