Shawn Michaels the lowest drawing champion of WWE of all time

[mizowns]

I thought it was Diesel, but, The lowest drawing champion was Shawn Michaels.

And still the WWE machine try to manipulate the fans to turn him goat.

Royal Rumble PPV buyrates:
(1.10) - Bret Hart vs. Taker - RR 96
(1.00) - Diesel vs. Bret Hart - RR 95
(0.90) - Yokozuna vs. Taker - RR 94
(0.70) - HBK vs. Sid - RR 97

WrestleMania PPV buyrates:
(1.68 grossing $5.2 million) - Bret Hart vs. Yokozuna - WM 94
(1.40 grossing $5.1 million) - Diesel vs. HBK - WM 95
(1.20 grossing $4.0 million) - HBK vs. Bret Hart - WM 96
(0.77 grossing $2.5 million) - Taker vs. Sid - WM 97

King of the Ring PPV buyrates:
(0.85) - Piper vs. Lawler - KOTR 94
(0.65 ) - Diesel/Bigelow vs. Sid/Tatanka - KOTR 95
(0.60) - HBK vs. Bulldog - KOTR 96
(0.50) - Taker vs. Farooq - KOTR 97

SummerSlam PPV buyrates:
(1.30) - Taker vs. Taker - SS 94
(0.90) - Diesel vs. Mabel - SS 95
(0.80) - Bret Hart vs. Taker - SS 97
(0.58) - HBK vs. Vader - SS 96

Survivor Series PPV buyrate:
(0.90) - Taker vs. Yokozuna - SS 94
(0.89) - Bret Hart vs. HBK - SS 97
(0.58) - HBK vs. Sid - SS 96
(0.57) - Diesel vs. Bret Hart - SS 95

In Your House PPV buyrates:
(0.83) - Diesel vs. Sid - IYH 1 [14 May 95]
(0.75) - Diesel vs. Bret Hart - IYH 6 [18 Feb 96]
(0.70) - Diesel vs. Sid - IYH 2 [23 July 95]
(0.70) - Diesel/HBK vs. Yokozuna/Bulldog - IYH 3 [24 Sept 95]
(0.65) - Diesel vs. HBK - IYH 7 [28 April 96]
(0.60) - HBK vs. Taker - IYH 18 [5 Oct 97]
(0.59) - Hart Foundation vs. Team USA - IYH 16 [6 July 97]
(0.57) - Austin vs. Taker - IYH 15 [11 May 97]
(0.50) - Bret Hart vs Taker vs Austin vs Vader - IYH 13 [16 Feb 97]
(0.50) - Bret Hart vs. Austin - IYH 14 [20 April 97]
(0.48) - HBK vs. Mankind - IYH 10 [22 Sept 96]
(0.45) - HBK vs. Bulldog - IYH 8 [26 & 28 May 96]
(0.45) - HBK vs. Taker - IYH 17 [7 Sept 97]
(0.44) - HBK vs. Shamrock - IYH 19 [7 Dec 97]
(0.40) - Diesel vs. Bulldog - IYH 4 [22 Oct 95]
(0.40) - Taker vs. Mankind - IYH 11 [20 Oct 96]
(0.37) - Vader/Owen/Bulldog vs. HBK/AJ/Sid - IYH 9 [21 July 96]
(0.35) - Bret Hart vs. Sid - IYH 12 [15 Dec 96]
(0.33) - Bret Hart vs. Bulldog - IYH 5 [17 Dec 95]

Diesel/HBK comparison:
(1.00) RR 95 - (0.70) RR 97 (bigger draw = Diesel)
(1.40) WM 95 - (1.20) WM 96 (bigger draw = Diesel)
(0.83) IYH May 95 - (0.45) IYH May 96 (bigger draw = Diesel)
(0.65) KOTR 95 - (0.60) KOTR 96 (bigger draw = Diesel)
(0.70) IYH July 95 - (0.37) IYH July 96 (bigger draw = Diesel)
(0.90) SS 95 - (0.58) SS 96 (bigger draw = Diesel)
(0.70) IYH Sept 95 - (0.48) IYH Sept 96 (bigger draw = Diesel)

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

Well, no wonder because guy almost draw them to bankrupcy when he was face of the company. I like the guy but he wasnt much of a draw. Though, in his defence, he did have good WCW as opponent.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Of course buy rates can be shown to state any case you like... but is Shawn actually the problem by 1997? You quote WM13 but he wasn't even there... perhaps the buyrate was low because he wasn't? You use IYH as a stick to beat Shawn but that surely shows diminishing returns all the way down. Remember WCW was running Hogan filled PPV's from 1994 onwards and by 1996, in reality time for IYH 8 the NWO was happening... People were buying WCW PPV's over WWE cos the WHOLE show was weak, not just Shawn.

That being said, Shawn didn't "draw" in the traditional sense and that can't be disputed. How much of that was down to him and how much the way WWE has ALWAYS done things is debateable... WWE has a formula which hasn't worked for a LONG time but they doggedly stick to it for the odd one or two who it does work with like Austin and Cena...

They take a hot heel, but he HAS to go face to get the title and then be rammed down our throats. Shawn was one of these and it was counter to EVERYTHING he did well. He was a cocky heel with swagger, exactly the kind of champion WWE needed in 1996, but they insisted on making him a "fake" face with the Boyhood Dream crap... meanwhile his running buddies were getting to be those cool heels in WCW...

The rest of the roster in the main were either newcomers/WCW rejects like Dustin, Austin, Foley, Rocky and Faarooq or cartoonish "cheap" talent from places like Smokey Mountain/antiquity... guys like TL Hopper/Tony Anthony, Sal Sincere, Waylon Mercy and the like...

Once Nash and Hall walked there was a real dearth of talent that could legit draw on the WWF roster... someone like Davey COULD draw, if used right and given a real "shot" at winning but once people realised Shawn wasn't dropping the belt till he decided to vacate it again... it killed the viewers... those buys against Davey, Foley and Vader could have been far higher, Vader especially but it was clear Shawn was "running the show" and people could see that... even Bret was sidelined, when he returned, he was feuding with Austin and it was BETTER than what Shawn was doing as champion. People cared more about Austin v Bret at Survivor Series than Shawn v Sid, so Shawn lost it to try to rebuild it.

Ability wise and potential wise, Shawn was not that bad... but his shitty attitude towards the title and the good of the business, coupled with the lack of real commitment Vince was showing anyone else and what WCW were doing better cost them...

Some elements of fate got in the way... if Pillman hadn't gotten hurt/healed quicker, Shawn would have had a worthy opponent and that would have drawn... Taker being hurt by Mabel in 1995 forced Vince to look at him as a main event player rather than against Monster Of The Month... 2 years later he and Shawn were tearing the house down.

In reality, once Vince knew Nash and Hall were going, putting the belt on Shawn as a face was the worst possible move... Bret summed it up in Wrestling With Shadows... there was something inherently dislike-able about Shawn and it made him a bad face champion then... The proof? As soon as he was let off the chain with DX, he was drawing...

But make no mistake, Vince carries the blame... he was the one being cheap with talent, indulging Shawn over proven commodities like Vader and Ron Simmons and letting his proven talent walk to WCW while picking up their "rejects" and putting them in gladiator costumes... after letting guys like Bigelow also walk too...

Vince deserved bankruptcy, it was only cos he was man enough to say "I'm gonna try EVERYTHING" that he found Attitude... had he just begun that in 1996 and had Shawn as the bad guy to match his offscreen jerkness, license to print money...

 

[ComeOnVince]

I find this information interesting, and I am unsure as to the motive of the OP, but I personally tire of this conversation whether it regard HBK or Diesel.

WWF all-around awful at this time, with a few high spots and reasons to watch. What HBK and Diesel did accomplish, however, was preventing what appeared to be the Titanic from sinking. HBK has always been an incredible performer, more highly regarded by many in his return and longer-than-expected second run.

Don Mattingly was for many years the face of a storied Yankees franchise that won no championships. Is that Don Mattingly's fault? Or the organization's? Some will say Mattingly. I say it's the organization. Only the org can field a TEAM of people to win. One marquee player isn't enough. Of course, if you know your baseball, my analogy falls apart because some will point to the fact that Donnie Baseball has yet to make the HoF. But you get the point. Also see Dan Marino.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

I find this information interesting, and I am unsure as to the motive of the OP, but I personally tire of this conversation whether it regard HBK or Diesel.

WWF all-around awful at this time, with a few high spots and reasons to watch. What HBK and Diesel did accomplish, however, was preventing what appeared to be the Titanic from sinking. HBK has always been an incredible performer, more highly regarded by many in his return and longer-than-expected second run.

Don Mattingly was for many years the face of a storied Yankees franchise that won no championships. Is that Don Mattingly's fault? Or the organization's? Some will say Mattingly. I say it's the organization. Only the org can field a TEAM of people to win. One marquee player isn't enough. Of course, if you know your baseball, my analogy falls apart because some will point to the fact that Donnie Baseball has yet to make the HoF. But you get the point. Also see Dan Marino.

To an extent you are right, Steven Gerrard and Liverpool are another example... but the point is he, like Shawn HAD success. but the organisation was choosing to use him incorrectly cos of his "perceived standing" rather than doing the right thing and perhaps moving the captaincy (football equivalent of the title) to another player one or two seasons ago. When that happens the lack of success is tagged to the player regardless and if like last season, Stevie directly causes a mistake that leads to losing said title then it can become all about them despite the fact the organisation is not actually investing in the top talent needed, just like WWF wasn't in the mid 1990's.

Shawn too made those cock-ups during his title reign, getting embroiled in backstage politics, fights with Bret and ultimately refusing to job the title at Mania and hiding behind an injury, to the point a year later Undertaker was in gorilla ready to ensure Shawn "did business" for Austin. Shawn gets away with it because WWE ultimately won the war, cos he "reformed" and was able to have a second career that bettered the first and because the whole company was so bad.

Had WWE failed at that time then Vince would have carried the can, even though he'd have tried to blame Shawn...when the reality was decisions made as far back as 1990, like not letting Rick Rude move up to the World title, not using Steamboat and Flair correctly and panicking into releasing talent like Davey in 1992 ALL led to those problems along with Shawn's failures... If Vince had kept Rude and made him champ, then Shawn as champ around 1996 would have drawn, cos he'd have had Rude to work off of for example.

 

[ComeOnVince]

To an extent you are right, Steven Gerrard and Liverpool are another example... but the point is he, like Shawn HAD success. but the organisation was choosing to use him incorrectly cos of his "perceived standing" rather than doing the right thing and perhaps moving the captaincy (football equivalent of the title) to another player one or two seasons ago. When that happens the lack of success is tagged to the player regardless and if like last season, Stevie directly causes a mistake that leads to losing said title then it can become all about them despite the fact the organisation is not actually investing in the top talent needed, just like WWF wasn't in the mid 1990's.

Shawn too made those cock-ups during his title reign, getting embroiled in backstage politics, fights with Bret and ultimately refusing to job the title at Mania and hiding behind an injury, to the point a year later Undertaker was in gorilla ready to ensure Shawn "did business" for Austin. Shawn gets away with it because WWE ultimately won the war, cos he "reformed" and was able to have a second career that bettered the first and because the whole company was so bad.

Had WWE failed at that time then Vince would have carried the can, even though he'd have tried to blame Shawn...when the reality was decisions made as far back as 1990, like not letting Rick Rude move up to the World title, not using Steamboat and Flair correctly and panicking into releasing talent like Davey in 1992 ALL led to those problems along with Shawn's failures... If Vince had kept Rude and made him champ, then Shawn as champ around 1996 would have drawn, cos he'd have had Rude to work off of for example.

Well said.

I also want to make clear that by stating that I tire of the conversation, yet chose to participate, that I in no way intended to disparage the OP for posting the info. Good info.

 

[FromGlasgow]

I don't think the low buy rates always come down to the champion though, I think during the peak times like the Rock N Wrestling or Attitude eras for example you could have put the belt on anyone and still drew pretty good ppv buy rates as well as the opposite of putting the belt on the most talented during a low period.
The highest Wrestlemania buy rate during that time you mentioned was Wrestlemania 10 but for me the match I remember I was looking forward to most at that event was the HBK vs Razor ladder match which ended up being one of my favourite matches ever which for me personally was an example of it not always being about the champion.
Another example would be the highest bought In Your House event ever was Diesel vs Sid which wouldn't be my choice of the best main event out of all the In Your House events.

 

[relentless1]

that opinion doesnt fly, at least with the Rock n Wrestling era, put the title on anyone other than Hogan in the early days and the WWF doesnt draw as well; same for the Attitude era, if you take Austin out of the top spot i doubt that era flys as well as it did, the champion becomes the champion BECAUSE he's thought to be the biggest draw for the company, HBK failed at that

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Two things:

1. The idea that the champ draws is old and outdated. The face of the company 'maybe'. That person was arguably Bret Hart as much as Michaels during that era. But there are so many other factors that go in to attendance, buy rates, and whatever you want to throw in to the "draw" category that champ is probably not even a top five reason.

2. WWE isn't about to base a GOAT poll that is seen by the public on drawing ability. I realize that the point of wrestling is making money and I realize that WWE knows this too but they aren't going to make selections based on money as a top criteria.

 

[SoulTrain4]

Wrestling is not boxing, people come to see the whole show not just one match most times.

But I'll humor the argument. Let's say you are Vince McMahon in 1996 and the HBK experiment isn't working, who do you put the title on?

Take into account WWF lost Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, Razor Ramon, Lex Luger and Diesel each guy was pushed to the moon as a top guy and they all left at some point between WWF's dark days of 1993-1997.

All you had other than Shawn was Bret and Undertaker.

 

[Wrestlingaholic]

Wrestling is not boxing, people come to see the whole show not just one match most times.

But I'll humor the argument. Let's say you are Vince McMahon in 1996 and the HBK experiment isn't working, who do you put the title on?

Take into account WWF lost Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, Razor Ramon, Lex Luger and Diesel each guy was pushed to the moon as a top guy and they all left at some point between WWF's dark days of 1993-1997.

All you had other than Shawn was Bret and Undertaker.

As much as I liked the Bulldog, they should have made Vader a monster heel champion, in much the same vein that Brock a Lesnar was treated in 2014. He *could* have done a decent job, but realistically nothing was competing with the fledgling new world order in 1996.

Obviously the plan was to have Shawn face the Ultimate Warrior until he no showed again, but I doubt that would have increased numbers at all.

And I very much agree, if the rest of the card is stacked with jabronis, it doesn't matter if the main event is Flair v Steamboat, the card isn't selling.

 

[FarFromFine]

I don't have time to sift through the data but at first glance, looking at those numbers, it looks like Bret's average is lower than both Diesel and Shawn

 

[FlairFan2003]

Business in general was down. That wasn't all Shawn's fault, remember business started declining in 1991, when Hogan was on top. Does that mean Hogan couldn't draw ? He certainly disproved that in WCW....

To the posters who said people buy the whole show, not just the champion (or main event), not quite, on the smaller PPVs you basically are buying for one match, maybe two, at a Mania or S-SLam you are buying for two or maybe 3 matches tops, everything else is filler. Fans bought WM 28 for instance for Cena-Rock & HHH-Taker, not much else on that card was a major selling point. Those two matches though were a huge selling point.

All major cards are like that. WM 24 really didn't have a legit main event but instead 3 separate matches that basically had equal billing (Taker-Edge, Triple Threat, Flair-HBK) and WWE chose the match that had the happy ending as the show closer. Those were three really big matches to build a show on though. Anyone really buy that PPV to see JBL hit Finlay with Trash Cans or Snooki wrestle ?? Uhhh....NO

Still, usually the champ is the one who gets the biggest matches and the best feuds so they contribute more to the show than anyone else in terms of drawing interest.

WM III had Harley Race making his Mania debut, Piper retiring, and the legendary Savage-Steamboat match....all nice draws, but Hogan-Andre was the biggest draw.

HBK certainly helped draw in his post 2002 return....look at the numbers for the major shows he was main eventing or prominently involved in ....the numbers were extremely good, much better on average than what they are drawing today. It's unfair to equate the "drawing power" of a champion or top star without looking at the whole picture. Only viewing HBK through the prism of 1996 isn't particularly fair. That would be like saying Hogan couldn't draw because outside of facing Ric Flair his WCW matches drew very poorly for most of 1994-95. Fact is Hogan could draw, and did draw, both before and after that brief period but it is true that when he first arrived in WCW his reception was lukewarm and the audience showed little interest in his matches not involving Flair.

People have to look at the whole picture, not just little snapshots in time.

 

[SoulTrain4]

Every match isn't Rock vs Cena. That's an outlier not the standard, people buy the WHOLE SHOW. Not just one match, this assumption that just because two or more guys are in the last match that's what everyone wanted to see is false.

Boxing sells one match, it may be 5 on the card but that one match is the match people came to see and it's the only reason those people are there. Mayweather v. Pacquiao for instance, wrestling has few equivalents.

Even MMA is learning that people are only willing to pay so much for a single fight. The days of Bruno where that stuff might have been true are gone.

It hasn't been true in decades, the concept is archaic.

 

[Goldie]

I don't have time to sift through the data but at first glance, looking at those numbers, it looks like Bret's average is lower than both Diesel and Shawn

Numbers dipped dramatically as Hogan left and the steroid scandal hit the WWE.
Business in 1993-94 with Bret was much better than the mid 90s.
Sure Bret was still a major star from 1995-97.... but he was way more over than Diesel.

I'd argue that Diesel not Shawn was the weakest drawing champion.
People split hairs at PPV numbers.... but they are affected by the general product not just the champion.

Bret and Shawn invoked a much better response than Diesel in this era.... at the '95 Rumble babyface vs babyface.... the fans were behind Bret not Diesel.... likewise at WM11 where Diesel was clearly booed in his match against Shawn

 

[FlairFan2003]

Every match isn't Rock vs Cena. That's an outlier not the standard, people buy the WHOLE SHOW. Not just one match, this assumption that just because two or more guys are in the last match that's what everyone wanted to see is false.

Boxing sells one match, it may be 5 on the card but that one match is the match people came to see and it's the only reason those people are there. Mayweather v. Pacquiao for instance, wrestling has few equivalents.

Even MMA is learning that people are only willing to pay so much for a single fight. The days of Bruno where that stuff might have been true are gone.

It hasn't been true in decades, the concept is archaic.

How is that archaic ? Look at how WWE books....most undercard matches get little storyline investment, little quality TV time, and the fueds typically end quickly and anti climatically right after the PPV with little or no fall out going forward. The top 1-2 or sometimes three matches are the ones that get the storyline, the TV time, and have consequences going forward.

If anything, today more than ever shows are sold on just the top matches, back in the 70s and 80s when there were only a small handful of "super cards" per years undercard matches down the line got much better storytelling and TV time invested to build the entire card. Guys like Hogan & Flair actually benefitted from having much more storyline invested in the matches behind them than today's champions.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

To an extent this is true. Compare Mania 6 or 7 to 31... you had 14 matches and they ALL had some kind of storyline investment, even the squashes like Rockers v Haku and Barbarian... it might only have been a cursory angle but it was there... This year you had fewer matches and only 3 or 4 were given any real storyline attention, 2 were purely throwaway with the Tag and Battle Royale matches...

At Mania 6 the "draw" was Hogan v Warrior... no other match on that card was "big time" in the same way, so that match was selling the whole PPV... even the next guys down who "could draw" like Savage and Duthy were in a mixed tag. Similarly, this year the guys who "could draw" like Wyatt, Ambrose, Ziggler and Bryan were all in lesser matches.

In the 1990's this was somewhere in the middle, they had Taker as "monster of the month" man as an attraction, they had Bret, they had Shawn and some reliable mid-carders who could sell lesser matches on their ability like Davey, Owen and Jarrett. But the "draw" was still Shawn and Bret with a bit of Taker... just as the "draw" for this Mania was Brock, Sting, Trips and Cena...

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The other thing to add in regard to GSB's point is that today, yes, draw is different because WWE is a TV/Media based entity. In 1996 and prior it was a live event business being helped by TV ratings and the like. The main focus was still "bums on seats love" rather than "eyes on the product". In today's world it is still about "draw" but it being about selling out an arena is barely part of it, it's whether you talk about them over the watercooler, tune in live to "must-see" them or DVR to see them... even IWC counts there... Draw today is being talked about and watched, then it was paying to see them.

 

[SoulTrain4]

If anything WM this year proves my point. The top match was the least pushed, most complained about, and probably the least anticipated match on the whole show.

So unless people paid to see everything, you think people were satisfied with the build, the match itself (as an attraction)?

By the "drawing" standard Reigns vs Lesnar was a bigger draw than Rock vs Cena, as we know it right now, WM 31 is the highest grossing event in history.

This must mean Brock and Roman are bigger stars than Austin, Hogan, Cena etc because they drew better

OR

was it that WWE put so much emphasis on other aspects of the card (the ladder match, Sting vs HHH, Wyatt vs Undertaker) that there was a lot on the show for people to get into?

I don't know if it makes sense to even consider that one match "draws", sounds stupid to me.

 

[Goldie]

Records are always going to be broken continuously because of Inflation and a steadily increasing population.
For instance.... Wrestlemania 3 drew a record live attendance and roughly 400,000 buys on PPV. 400,00 doesn't seem big by todays Wrestlemania margins.

However this is misleading... What people don't realise is that in 1987 cable TV was still in its early years.... by 1990 the number of homes with cable had doubled.
That's why WM3 had a monster buy rate of 8.0 (the highest Wrestlemania buy rate) yet the volume was just 400,000.
So 8% of Cable owners who could have bought the show did do.... whereas the current Manias hover around 2.0% despite the actual volume of buys being much higher.

Now you have the WWE network too... so viewers can watch PPVs without soley making a one off purchase for a given show.

I wouldn't base an argument on Wrestler A vs Wrestler B soley based on PPV numbers.
The argument has an element to it... but not a whole.

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

I had always enjoyed Shawns work in the "new generation" era even as a bland babyface after his return from Sid's attack on him. Shawn was always a great in ring performer, and is rightly remembered as being the best ever American wrestler, and probably the best in ring performer to ever be in the WWE. His run as champion factored in too many different problems though. Firstly, he was taking drugs and being a jack ass behind the scenes and upsetting the locker room - which kept moral low in the company. Secondly, WWF had dipped from their peak about 4 years before Shawn tookover as champ, and they had lost a lot of old school fans. They never came back - Bret Hart attracted new fans. When they saw Bret lose to Shawn - no matter how it went down - they didn't buy in to it as much as they did Bret. Keep in mind; nobody who held that belt turned business around until November 1997 after the screwjob - and it was HBK who was holding the belt. WWF was on fire from November 1997 to April 2001.

I would never place the downturn in PPV sales on any one person - it is a team effort and if the talent and writers arent performing; you can't pin in on HBK. The WWF storylines in them days were dire!

 

[LBGetBack]

Wrestling is not boxing, people come to see the whole show not just one match most times.

But I'll humor the argument. Let's say you are Vince McMahon in 1996 and the HBK experiment isn't working, who do you put the title on?

Take into account WWF lost Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, Razor Ramon, Lex Luger and Diesel each guy was pushed to the moon as a top guy and they all left at some point between WWF's dark days of 1993-1997.

All you had other than Shawn was Bret and Undertaker.[/QUOTE]

Well, they also had Vader who was fantastic and was every bit the star those 3 were......until WWF took him down several pegs. He could've beaten Shawn and been a fantastic heel champion, just like he had been in WCW.

 

[justtxyank]

Well, they also had Vader who was fantastic and was every bit the star those 3 were......until WWF took him down several pegs. He could've beaten Shawn and been a fantastic heel champion, just like he had been in WCW.

Vader was 40+, hadn't been champion in over 2 years by that point and was in bad physical shape. I would have loved Vader to get another title run in the states, but it wasn't a good idea.

Not to mention his match with Shawn Michaels did a terrible buyrate and he was basically buried after that on the WWF roster.

 

[Steinermania]

There was no one left in the company to feud with at the time of his title reign. Hall & Nash left to join WCW, Bret Hart went missing for some time & Steve Austin was just getting started as the main guy. WWE/F missed Hall & Nash so much they even had a fake Razor Ramon & Diesel.

 

[Creepy Old Man]

People always slam Shawn, Bret and Diesel for not drawing well, but to be honest I think a lot of it reflects the times. Mainstream interest in wrestling had dried up, and buyrates were falling under Hogan up to 1993, which people forget. Rock 'n' Wrestling was long dead, and the WWF had been hammered by widely publicised scandals. Hogan turning heel in 1996 was a massive shot in the arm for wrestling, and with the rise of Austin's anti-hero and the influence of ECW it became cool again. Mike Tyson being heavily involved in the road to WrestleMania 14 didn't hurt either.