KB Answers Wrestling Questions | Page 405 | WrestleZone Forums

KB Answers Wrestling Questions

Since the early 90s when they single handedly kept the WWE in business.

:lmao:

They're what almost put the 'E out of business. Nobody wanted to pay to see Hart and Michaels at the top of the card -- they were only treading water, trying to avoid the inevitable. Vince's back was against the wall until Austin blew up.

EDIT: An excerpt of Raw's ratings in '95, when Bret and Shawn were focal points of the programming.

September 4, 1995: 2.2
September 11, 1995: 2.5
September 18, 1995: 2.7
September 25, 1995: 1.9
October 2, 1995: 2.5
October 9, 1995: 2.6
October 16, 1995: 2.6
October 23, 1995: 2.2
October 30, 1995: 2.1
November 6, 1995: 2.6
November 13, 1995: 2.6
November 20, 1995: 2.3
November 27, 1995: 2.3
December 4, 1995: 2.6
December 11, 1995: 2.5
December 18, 1995: 2.3
December 25, 1995: NOT ON
 
I think that once Cena's career is over, he'll be above Flair and maybe even The Rock. I don't think I can truly appreciate how good Cena is until he hangs up the boots. Don't get me wrong, he's probably my favorite wrestler of all time, but I can't rank him higher than number five until I see what kind of legacy he leaves behind. Still, Cena's one of only five people who have ever reached that certain level in the business, even if the IWC would hate to admit it.

All this ranking business has me wondering: Would you rank Sting above or below Bret Hart? I say above, but barely.

Flair isn't as great as he's made out to be. He's one of those people where longevity is confused with greatness.

And overall, it's probably Sting over Bret, but not by much so yeah you're right. that's getting into nitpicking levels though. If only there was some major contest we could run to determine what the masses think......maybe around Wrestlemania season.
 
Flair isn't as great as he's made out to be. He's one of those people where longevity is confused with greatness.

And overall, it's probably Sting over Bret, but not by much so yeah you're right. that's getting into nitpicking levels though. If only there was some major contest we could run to determine what the masses think......maybe around Wrestlemania season.

I can agree with that. Flair could have comfortably retired in the early 90s, truth be told.

Hmm...
 
You mentioned earlier that Flair is a guy who's rated higher than actual talent due to longevitiy, is Undertaker in that same category?

He was basically a midcarder/jobber to the stars until 2005 and then has been a part time guy since 2010...he was never the "go to" guy at any point, unless his 1997 Spring-Summer title reign is more important than I remember
 
:lmao:

They're what almost put the 'E out of business. Nobody wanted to pay to see Hart and Michaels at the top of the card -- they were only treading water, trying to avoid the inevitable. Vince's back was against the wall until Austin blew up.

EDIT: An excerpt of Raw's ratings in '95, when Bret and Shawn were focal points of the programming.

And these are the numbers for Nitro.12/25/95 2.5
12/18/95 2.7
12/11/95 2.6
12/4/95 2.6
11/27/95 2.3
11/20/95 2.5
11/13/95 2.0
11/6/95 2.3
10/30/95 2.5
10/23/95 2.2
10/16/95 2.2
10/9/95 2.6
10/2/95 2.5
9/25/95 2.7
9/18/95 2.4
9/11/95 2.5
9/4/95 2.9
 
You mentioned earlier that Flair is a guy who's rated higher than actual talent due to longevitiy, is Undertaker in that same category?

He was basically a midcarder/jobber to the stars until 2005 and then has been a part time guy since 2010...he was never the "go to" guy at any point, unless his 1997 Spring-Summer title reign is more important than I remember

Yeah but the difference is that Taker has gotten WAY better in his later career. As for the 90s, remember that the main event of "Revenge of the Taker" was Austin vs. Hart. Taker couldn't even main event his own PPV as world champion.
 
And these are the numbers for Nitro.12/25/95 2.5
12/18/95 2.7
12/11/95 2.6
12/4/95 2.6
11/27/95 2.3
11/20/95 2.5
11/13/95 2.0
11/6/95 2.3
10/30/95 2.5
10/23/95 2.2
10/16/95 2.2
10/9/95 2.6
10/2/95 2.5
9/25/95 2.7
9/18/95 2.4
9/11/95 2.5
9/4/95 2.9
Where in my post did I mention Nitro? I was showing you strictly random Raw ratings, with Shawn and Bret on top, so as to prove my point that WWE was not doing anything but the bare minimum. If you want to get into Nitro vs Raw, then I'll just pull up the Monday Night Wars rating chart:

Monday_Night_Wars_Ratings.JPG


From May 20th, 1996 until March 30th, 1998, WCW basically has an unrivaled lead over Raw. Michaels, Hart, and company are drawing dreadful numbers. Then, wouldn't you know it, once Austin was the unrivaled top guy, ratings shot through the roof, saving WWF from failure. Whereas Bret and Shawn failed miserably.
 
Austin on top in 1997 got flattened by the NWO as well. The TV ratings can't really say much. Austin is way ahead of all of those guys not named Hogan though. Bret is a bigger deal than Shawn by a few miles also.
 
Austin on top in 1997 got flattened by the NWO as well. The TV ratings can't really say much. Austin is way ahead of all of those guys not named Hogan though. Bret is a bigger deal than Shawn by a few miles also.

Strictly from a ratings perspective, Shawn and Bret failed, where Austin ultimately excelled. NWO may have been the hottest thing around, but that doesn't change the fact that Shawn and Bret were not legitimate top draws, and their era nearly killed the WWF.

I'm not even trying to argue anything other than the fact that Hart and Shawn most definitely didn't "save" the WWF.
 
Where in my post did I mention Nitro? I was showing you strictly random Raw ratings, with Shawn and Bret on top, so as to prove my point that WWE was not doing anything but the bare minimum. If you want to get into Nitro vs Raw, then I'll just pull up the Monday Night Wars rating chart:

Monday_Night_Wars_Ratings.JPG


From May 20th, 1996 until March 30th, 1998, WCW basically has an unrivaled lead over Raw. Michaels, Hart, and company are drawing dreadful numbers. Then, wouldn't you know it, once Austin was the unrivaled top guy, ratings shot through the roof, saving WWF from failure. Whereas Bret and Shawn failed miserably.

You didn't mention it. I brought it up because it's the only thing you can compare the numbers you gave to, and shows that wrestling as a whole wasn't pulling big numbers until the nWo and Steve Austin made it big.If people really didn't want to watch Bret and Shawn on top like you say the ratings would have been even lower.
 
I found some RAW ratings from 94 and guess what? They're around the same as the ones you chose to show the company on hard times.
26.12.1994
2.2
19.12.1994
2.7
12.12.1994
2.7
05.12.1994
3.3
28.11.1994
2.8
21.11.1994
2.5
14.11.1994
2.7
07.11.1994
2.8
31.10.1994
3.1
24.10.1994
2.5
17.10.1994
2.8
10.10.1994
2.5
03.10.1994
2.7
26.09.1994
2.6
19.09.1994
2.5
12.09.1994
2.8
22.08.1994
2.5
 
You didn't mention it. I brought it up because it's the only thing you can compare the numbers you gave to, and shows that wrestling as a whole wasn't pulling big numbers until the nWo and Steve Austin made it big.If people really didn't want to watch Bret and Shawn on top like you say the ratings would have been even lower.

They didn't want to watch Bret and Shawn on top, though. Ratings were low, the product was bad, and the WWF was on the brink of crossing over to the point where they couldn't have ever caught WCW. Steve Austin saved them. And I don't know why you don't understand what I tried to prove by using those ratings. I don't care what they pulled in 1994 (though, on average, those ratings are better, but they're irrelevant to my argument) -- I only care what they pulled in HBK/Hart years in comparison to Austin. My whole argument is that Austin saved the WWF, not Bret and Shawn, as you claim. Look onto 1996, with Shawn and Bret still on top -- what then? Ratings still suck.

EDIT: And don't get me wrong, it's not all on Shawn and Bret -- like KB said, the NWO kicked WWF's ass in '96 - 97 and if you go back and watch some of those old Raws, you probably won't be able to watch it without skipping some of the AWFUL stuff on the shows. In the end, though, I feel like that's a reflection on the top guys of the era and the fact that they pulled some of their lowest ratings ever with Shawn and Bret at the helm.
 
They didn't want to watch Bret and Shawn on top, though. Ratings were low, the product was bad, and the WWF was on the brink of crossing over to the point where they couldn't have ever caught WCW. Steve Austin saved them. And I don't know why you don't understand what I tried to prove by using those ratings. I don't care what they pulled in 1994 (though, on average, those ratings are better, but they're irrelevant to my argument) -- I only care what they pulled in HBK/Hart years in comparison to Austin. My whole argument is that Austin saved the WWF, not Bret and Shawn, as you claim. Look onto 1996, with Shawn and Bret still on top -- what then? Ratings still suck.

I never once said they saved the WWE. I said they kept them in business when things could have gone really bad which they did. The ratings from 94 are relevant to your argument because they had more top guys at that time and the ratings were barely higher than they were when Bret and HBK were on top. If people didn't want to watch them like you say the ratings would have plummeted, not barely moved. Yea Austin is the single reason the WWF started getting ahead and became the juggernaut it is today, but he wouldn't have had the opportunity to if HBK and Bret Hart didn't work their asses off keeping the company open in the time between the big guys leaving and Austin making it big.
 
I think that once Cena's career is over, he'll be above Flair and maybe even The Rock. I don't think I can truly appreciate how good Cena is until he hangs up the boots. Don't get me wrong, he's probably my favorite wrestler of all time, but I can't rank him higher than number five until I see what kind of legacy he leaves behind. Still, Cena's one of only five people who have ever reached that certain level in the business, even if the IWC would hate to admit it.

All this ranking business has me wondering: Would you rank Sting above or below Bret Hart? I say above, but barely.

Love him or hate him,Cena is one of the top 4 guys in the history.But i'd say Cena possibly can't be over the Rock.The Rock is probably the only A-list WWE main eventer.He was the rear gunner to Austin in the attitude era.Only his presence now at wrestlemania brings over a million buys.If Cena reaches that level after he becomes a part timer,I think we can call him #3 of all time.
 
Do you think that one of the reasons that Cena is not on the level of guys like Rock and Austin is that he has no legitimate competition?
Also, could Rock and Austin have reached the levels that they did if they were in a different era from each other?
 
Strictly from a ratings perspective, Shawn and Bret failed, where Austin ultimately excelled. NWO may have been the hottest thing around, but that doesn't change the fact that Shawn and Bret were not legitimate top draws, and their era nearly killed the WWF.

I'm not even trying to argue anything other than the fact that Hart and Shawn most definitely didn't "save" the WWF.

They didn't. Austin saved it.

Do you think that one of the reasons that Cena is not on the level of guys like Rock and Austin is that he has no legitimate competition?
Also, could Rock and Austin have reached the levels that they did if they were in a different era from each other?

Partially. At the end of the day, Cena is just so far and away better than everyone else.

Not likely. Austin caught an audience and was their voice. That can only happen when the timing is right.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,837
Members
21,727
Latest member
alvarosamaniego
Back
Top