Shawn Michaels the lowest drawing champion of WWE of all time

[natlee75]

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.

I loved the work of guys like Rick Rude, Ted DiBiase, Mr. Perfect, etc., but I really couldn't see any of them being the top champion of the company during that era when the belt was held by the archetype muscle bound roid monger or giant behemoth.

Guys like Rude, DiBiase, Perfect, etc. were "Intercontinental Championship material" where the company could celebrate the more "skillful" performers while still keeping the world title exclusively on the bodybuilders that Vince loved.

It wasn't until Ric Flair at Royal Rumble 1992 that a smaller guy got to taste World Championship status and that was really only because of Flair's legendary status in the business. Of course, that was a great stepping stone for Bret Hart down the line, but that didn't even last too long before they went right back to the big guys like Hogan and Yokozuna.

 

[natlee75]

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.

THIS.

I couldn't believe it when I saw Michaels walk away from that title defense with the belt. I was so sure with the build-up they gave Vader that Vince would repeat history and go with what already worked in a few other organizations... but of course Vince has that complex where the only thing that ever works is what he invented himself so...

 

[natlee75]

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.

Vader wasn't in great physical shape when he was in WCW, either. He was never a ripped gladiator... he was a man mountain. That was the whole point of Vader.

I wouldn't put him not being World Champion during those two and a half years entirely on him, either -- Hogan arrived in WCW only a few months after Vader lost the title to Ric Flair so unless you were best pals with Hogan you pretty much weren't holding that title. He was lucky to even have the U.S. belt during the tail end of his WCW run.

He would have been great as WWF Champion.

 

[Vader]

The biggest variable in those buy rates and your argument is that the midcard sucked at that time. This was one of the most cartoonish eras in pro wrestling. At the end of the day, the main event is the draw, but you can't expect Michaels or anyone else to carry a card that is marketed to 4 year olds.

 

[FlairFan2003]

The biggest variable in those buy rates and your argument is that the midcard sucked at that time. This was one of the most cartoonish eras in pro wrestling. At the end of the day, the main event is the draw, but you can't expect Michaels or anyone else to carry a card that is marketed to 4 year olds.

You must not have watched Pro Wrestling very long, at least in WWE, this was not near as cartoonish as the 1980s Rock & Wrestling which by the way was the single biggest boom era ever for the business as a whole and WWE in particular. At least in the mid 90s there was much more emphasis on ring ability and far fewer Saturday Morning Cartoon Angles like we got so much of 1980s/early 90s WWE (putting Bobby Heenan in a Weasel Suit, mainstreaming ridiculous cartoon characters like Repo Man and IRS, not too mention The Red Rooster, the whole "Who kidnapped my dog" angle with The British Bulldogs, etc). By the time New Generation kicked in 1993 much of that was gone (save for the occasional Isaac Yankem). Michaels was given a much better time to run where in ring ability meant far more in WWE than it had at any other time (probably before and DEFINATELY since).

 

[Steinermania]

WCW was at its height during Shawn's title reign. A quick scan of the names in WCW showed they had Hall/Nash stating the nwo angle. There was the established names in Hogan/Savage. There was the WCW guys like Sting. WWF was hitting the restart button - they needed to as well.

 

[SCrooked1]

The lowest drawing champion was Nash:

From 5/18/98 WON:

A few weeks back, Randy Savage did the interview basically portraying the old-school veteran point of view as if the new stars of today (and in specific, Bret Hart, his rival on an upcoming PPV match) as never having proven themselves as money draws, which of course becomes really stupid today since the business is generating more money than at any time in its history. It got me thinking about something we've done before, and I guess it was time to do again. When it comes to the WWF champion, who really did put asses in the seats and whose title reigns were and weren't successful when it comes to drawing television ratings.

We're going to limit this to WWF because over the years the WCW championship has generally not been defended on the majority of house shows, nor has the title match been the main event almost every time out as it is with the WWF title, nor the key personality when it comes to drawing television ratings. That in some cases also is true with the WWF champion, but more often that not the champion is who the company during that time period was built around. The WWF champion by and large defended the title at most of the house shows, or at least was the key headliner, particularly in the major arenas, and his match was probably 95 percent of the time the main event and key drawing match on the shows.

We've been keeping pretty accurate WWF records dating back to January of 1992. After giving the raw data, which will say whatever it says, we'll try again to put a face on the numbers. The average attendance per show and average television rating would be the figure during the period the person is the champion. The time frame average would be the average for the period six months prior to the title reign and six months after, so we can compare how the champion himself changed or didn't change business from what it was doing at that point in WWF history. Because we don't have 1991 records, when it comes to Ric Flair's reign, the time frame would only be the six months after he lost the title the first time, and since Steve Austin's reign is still going and is less than six months in, for Shawn Michaels we are only going a few months after and six months before, and Austin's time frame is only six months before since there is no after. First, let's look at attendance, attendance in the period both before and after the man won the title, and the comparison percentage is basically all things being equal (and they never truly are but this is as good as it's going to get), how good or bad the person drew in comparison to what during that time period they should have been expected to draw:



Champion Att. Avg. frame



Ric Flair (1/19/92 to 4/5/92) 6,503 3,690 (+76.2%)

Randy Savage (4/5/92 to 9/1/92) 3,772 4,358 (-13.4%)

Ric Flair (9/1/92 to 10/12/92) 3,295 3,826 (-13.9%)

Bret Hart (10/12/92 to 4/4/93) 3,432 3,607 (-4.9%)

Hulk Hogan (4/4/93 to 6/13/93) 3,153 3,528 (-10.6%)

Yokozuna (6/13/93 to 3/20/94) 3,481 3,218 (+8.2%)

Bret Hart (3/20/94 to 11/23/94) 3,020 3,176 (-4.9%)

Kevin Nash (11/26/94 to 11/19/95) 2,935 4,028 (-27.1%)

Bret Hart (11/19/95 to 3/31/96) 5,186 3,843 (+34.9%)

Shawn Michaels (3/31/96 to 11/17/96) 4,690 4,884 (-4.0%)

Sycho Sid (11/17/96 to 1/19/97) 5,172 5,028 (+2.9%)

Shawn Michaels (1/19/97 to 2/13/97) 4,633 5,137 (-9.8%)

Sycho Sid (2/17/97 to 3/23/97) 5,678 4,952 (+14.7%)

Undertaker (3/23/97 to 8/3/97) 5,719 5,511 (+3.8%)

Bret Hart (8/3/97 to 11/9/97) 5,817 6,836 (-14.9%)

Shawn Michaels (11/9/97 to 3/29/98)* 7,101 6,868 (+3.4%)

Steve Austin (3/29/98 to 5/1/98)* 8,851 6,038 (+46.6%)



OVERALL RANKING OF CHAMPIONS REIGNS AS DRAWING CARDS (1/1/92 TO 5/1/98)

Avg. frame

Steve Austin 8,851 6,038 (+46.6%)

Undertaker 5,719 5,511 (+3.8%)

Sycho Sid 5,341 5,003 (+6.8%)

Ric Flair 5,220 3,744 (+39.4%)

Shawn Michaels 4,906 5,087 (-3.6%)

Bret Hart 4,063 4,103 (-1.0%)

Randy Savage 3,772 4,358 (-13.4%)

Yokozuna 3,481 3,218 (+6.5%)

Hulk Hogan 3,153 3,528 (-10.6%)

Kevin Nash 2,935 4,028 (-27.1%)



The most important thing these figures show is that in most cases, and Steve Austin right now may or may not be the exception, it is business patterns at the time, and now who is on top, that is more important than who holds the title and who is headlining the shows.

Austin is the only WWF champion of the past six-and-a-half years who has made business considerably stronger than it was should have been expected to be based on the time frame. On paper it looks like Ric Flair also did that, and Bret Hart did in his third title reign, but overall the four-times (not included the one-day deal) Hart held the title, business was almost exactly as it should have been. Hart was neither a good draw or a bad draw as WWF champion, but he drew what should have been expected as champion. The same can be said for Shawn Michaels. The only drew bad draws as champion were Randy Savage, and really that was a weird period in history and he isn't to blame for that, Hulk Hogan, which was a miscalculation at the time and who was a great draw at other periods, and Kevin Nash, who was a bad draw as champion.

Flair's first title reign was just before the period the bottom dropped out, which makes his first reign in particular and overall figure look stronger than it really was, not to mention that during the first reign it was really Hogan, and not Flair, who was the real drawing card and realistically should be given credit for the impressive figures. Yokozuna's title reign, while in a bad period, did better business than they were doing at that time. While the WWF scandal period actually started in 1992 at about the same time (actually about two weeks before) Flair won the title, it didn't really kick into gear until late March and the big names (Hogan in particular since he was the most important) didn't stop dropping out until after Wrestlemania, which was the same day that Savage beat Flair for the title. The big drop from Flair to Savage as champion had a lot more to do with the situation having nothing to do with Flair and Savage, although it was a mistake at that particular point in time to make the change that early because the psychology of Flair chasing Savage with the angle the way it was was all wrong. But the business drop-off would have occurred anyway. Putting the title back on Flair later in the year saw attendance continue to drop, and it remained at a low point until the end of 1995. The WWF building again around the scandal-magnet Hogan in the summer of 1993 actually saw business decline from the previous reign of Hart and the follow-up reign of Yokozuna. The pick-up had a lot more to do with the business in all facets starting to rebound after three-and-a-half years due to renewed interest in wrestling in general created by the Monday Night Wars, although it can't be argued that Bret Hart was also a much bigger draw as champion than Diesel.

Having said all that, these figures do end several myths. The first being that Flair wasn't a success at the box office as WWF champion. the second being that Sid was a box office failure as champion, when in actuality he was a success as a draw as compared with the better working Michaels during the same time period, in particular the early 1997 reign by Michaels who had the benefit of being champion during wrestling's hot winter season and there was a noticeable drop-off in attendance after he beat Sid at the Alamodome. The third is that Hart is unproven as a draw. He was not a draw his first two reigns, but was a huge draw in his third title reign. His fourth reign looks bad when it comes to time frame because business exploded after he left, but business was doing great with him on top all summer and fall. And the final myth is anyone who would claim that anyone but the present-day Austin is the biggest drawing card as champion of this decade.

Now let's look at television ratings:



Champion Rating Avg frame



Ric Flair (1/19/92 to 4/5/92) 2.53 2.12 (+19.3%)

Randy Savage (4/5/92 to 9/1/92) 2.16 2.12 (+1.9%)

Ric Flair (9/1/92 to 10/12/92) 1.80 2.11 (-14.7%)

Bret Hart (10/12/92 to 4/4/93) 1.98 1.98

Hulk Hogan (4/4/93 to 6/13/93) 2.03 1.99 (+2.0%)

Yokozuna (6/13/93 to 3/20/94) 2.09 1.98 (+5.6%)

Bret Hart (3/20/94 to 11/23/94) 1.94 2.14 (-9.3%)

Kevin Nash (11/26/94 to 11/19/95) 2.00 1.96 (+2.0%)

Bret Hart (11/19/95 to 3/31/96) 1.93 1.89 (+2.1%)

Shawn Michaels (3/31/96 to 11/17/96) 1.76 1.58 (+6.3%)

Sycho Sid (11/17/96 to 1/19/97) 1.30 1.66 (-21.7%)

Shawn Michaels (1/19/97 to 2/13/97) 1.40 1.62 (-13.6%)

Sycho Sid (2/17/97 to 3/23/97) 1.50 1.64 (-8.5%)

Undertaker (3/23/97 to 8/3/97) 1.80 1.69 (+6.5%)

Bret Hart (8/3/97 to 11/9/97) 1.98 1.98

Shawn Michaels (11/9/97 to 3/29/98)* 2.05 2.11 (-2.8%)

Steve Austin (3/29/98 to 5/1/98)* 2.50 2.00 (+40.0%)



OVERALL RANKING OF CHAMPIONS REIGNS AS TV RATINGS DRAWS (1/1/92 TO 5/1/98)

Rating Frame

Steve Austin 2.50 2.00 (+40.0%)

Ric Flair 2.24 2.12 (+5.7%)

Randy Savage 2.16 2.12 (+1.9%)

Yokozuna 2.09 1.98 (+5.6%)

Hulk Hogan 2.03 1.99 (+2.0%)

Kevin Nash 2.00 1.96 (+2.0%)

Bret Hart 1.96 2.02 (-3.0%)

Undertaker 1.80 1.69 (+6.5%)

Shawn Michaels 1.78 1.67 (+6.6%)

Sycho Sid 1.37 1.65 (-17.0%)



While Austin looks good in both polls, we do see, as mentioned before, a difference when it comes to ratings draws and house show draws. The most notable is the short reigns of Sycho Sid, which were successful at the box office, but were flops when it comes to TV ratings. And while Undertaker was second from the top as a drawing card as champion, he was near the bottom when it came to television ratings when he was the key figure. Michaels is in the middle as a draw, but near the bottom when it came to ratings, although from his time frame, you can see he actually did better than what he probably should have done and it was more of coming along at the wrong time to draw ratings, unlike Sid who was a bonafide disaster in that way. The other interesting note is that while Kevin Nash was a disaster as champion at the box office, he was not a disaster as champion in the slightest when it came to drawing ratings. As mentioned before, ratings and drawing money at the box office are two different animals, often entirely different, and this period is rare in that all facets of business are booming at the same time. It is also interesting to note that while we talk about record ratings all the time, the ratings with Austin as champion, while great, are less than those the company was drawing in early 1992, and that was before Monday Night Raw even existed and the flagship show was that stale taped Prime Time Wrestling.



*In the interest of realism as opposed to absolute accuracy, Austin's period of champion is actually being figured from January 15, 1998 when Michaels stopped working house shows and Austin, even though he didn't actually win the title until March 29, was clearly the top drawing card in the company and was headlining all the house shows in that capacity. Realistically, Austin may have been the top drawing card dating back much farther than that, arguably since Wrestlemania although it was Bret vs. Undertaker that headlined most of the arena shows during both the Undertaker and Bret title reigns.

The biggest negative drawing % frame was Nash's reign, Raw's ratings were slightly higher when Nash was champion but that's misleading as Raw's ratings started to drop w/the emergence of the NWO.

 

[Just Do It]

But there is more to factor in than the champion to house show ransk though, which should be considered to give some justice to Nash. i.e. who was he defending against?

 

[FlairFan2003]

The Champion is the top guy but the popularity of the entire card plays a major role in the success of TV ratings & attendance. You don't watch a 2 or 3 hour RAW just to see the one 15 minute segment the champ is in, you're watching a lot of stuff.

This was evident during the early days of The Monday Night Wars when RAw typically won handily during the early portions of the head to head but WCW either won or pulled very close for the main events, they were top heavy on popular established stars but the undercard was very undeveloped. As WCW started putting more emphasis on the undercard, you saw a major shift in the numbers and in fact Nitro won several times against RAW in the early months of 1996 (Pre NWO), then right before the NWO kicked in the two shows were essentially tied, switching weekly ratings wins and both drawing fairly well in their main events.

Nash obviously was extremely popular, his WWE Champion reign basically is what set him as the #2 star and probably the MVP of the NWO storyline at it's height and he had instant cred with the audience switching companies and opposing the likes of Flair, Sting, etc. The WWE product however was not very good and he in particular had some dud opponents (didn't he defend the title against Mabel at S-Slam ???). If Michaels wasn't as popular as he was he never would have been seen as a viable opponent to put the belt on & elevate Steve Austin.

I find it interesting that Flair's first WWE reign does so well numbers wise since it immediately followed Hogan, basically that would mean business was flat at the end of Hogan's run and Flair propped things up. Given the huge surprise it was for him to even be in WWE that isn't surprising. However, keep in mind that during that entire time as Champ spanning the R-Rumble to Mania in 92 he pretty much just wrestled Hogan & Piper, the greatest star of the NWA battling the two biggest WWE Icons of the last decade all over the circuit. IE no one should be surprised that drew well. The surprise is that interest tailed off for his feud against The Ultimate Warrior, what should have been another 80s Dream Match, although an injury cut short his second reign the drop in numbers from Savage (who basically just faced Flair repeatedly and no one else) seems high.....but then Warrior was released around this time and any plans to give him the title basically canned so maybe it shouldn't be a surprise.

Still, it is unfair to give all the credit for the success (or lack) of the card at any given time just to the champion. The Champ certainly has a lot to do with it but if the rest of the card isn't popular and fans aren't engage numbers wont be that good.

Its like what we do with quarterbacks......we elevate the QBs in the NFL to this lofty status where you seemingly cant win playoff berths and compete for titles without a great one. Yet Aaron Rogers, largely considered the greatest QB playing today has a fairly poor playoff record (0-1 in 2009, 01 in 2011, 1-1 in 2012, 0-1 in 2013, 1-1 in 2014). That's five trips to the playoffs and just 2 wins. Meanwhile Joe Flacco & Colin Kappernick opoosed each other in a Super Bowl. Tom Brady and NE didn't win a single playoff game between 2008-2010, including an embarrassing loss at home to an underdog Jets team quarterbacked by Mark Sanchez! In the end while the QB certainly plays a major role it's a team game and the rest of the team has to play well to win. In wrestling, the champ and the champ's storyline can help the bottom line but its really about the popularity of the product as a whole, especially when you're comparing TV Ratings for two and three hour broadcasts and house show attendance.

With that said Kevin Nash got a bum deal with some lousy product during his time as champ, although he clearly connected with the audience or he wouldn't have had the success he had immediately after in WCW. Very much like Sting in 1990 WCW where he was roundly criticized for not drawing as well as Flair but they gave Sting some horrible storylines and weak opponents (Sid Justice) to face. If he really wasn't popular with fans then he wouldn't have had the success he had over all.

 

[HBKperfect23]

96 was an interesting year. There's a few reasons WWF did poorly. The main reason, IMO, is wrestling fans were ready for the attitude era and they had other options with the awesome NWO angle and (to a much lesser extent) ECW. WWF also hadn't gotten the point yet with having to deliver a quality TV show each and every week, as opposed to slowly building angles.

The roster sucked. The outsiders were gone, Bret was gone most of the year. I look at Shawn in 96 as the guy who bridged the gap to the attitude era. Many have given Shawn a lot of credit for his work in 96, even people who disliked him personally.

 

[SCrooked1]

I find it interesting that Flair's first WWE reign does so well numbers wise since it immediately followed Hogan, basically that would mean business was flat at the end of Hogan's run and Flair propped things up.

They didn't have records prior to Flair winning the belt so the +76.2% was based on the 6 months after he lost it.

 

[Wald]

96 was an interesting year. There's a few reasons WWF did poorly. The main reason, IMO, is wrestling fans were ready for the attitude era and they had other options with the awesome NWO angle and (to a much lesser extent) ECW. WWF also hadn't gotten the point yet with having to deliver a quality TV show each and every week, as opposed to slowly building angles.

The roster sucked. The outsiders were gone, Bret was gone most of the year. I look at Shawn in 96 as the guy who bridged the gap to the attitude era. Many have given Shawn a lot of credit for his work in 96, even people who disliked him personally.

We've butted heads about Bret and Shawn in the past but I agree with you here. Same with when people say Bret wasn't a great draw for WWF. You need to take in to account what both the Hitman and HBK had to work with in their runs. Bret's first run saw him feud with such legendary heels as Jean Pierre Lafitte and Papa Shango as well as Michaels and Razor Ramon before they were anywhere near ready for the main event. Michaels had to go up against guys like Vader and Bulldog, who were both good in their prime but weren't considered main event material by that stage.

Plus, Bret and Shawn were about all that kept the company afloat between 1993 and 1998. The majority of everything else Vince was booking was absolute garbage.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

WWE DID make some good talent gains in 1996 remember, like Pillman and it's wrong to say that Davey & Vader were not considered main event... they were and that's why they were put with Shawn - both had a legit claim to taking that title from him and he then chasing them... they didn't do two close finishes with Davey out of loyalty... it was Shawn who put the kaibosh on it each time refusing to job, as he always did in those days.

 

[BestSportsEntertainer]

Its like what we do with quarterbacks......we elevate the QBs in the NFL to this lofty status where you seemingly cant win playoff berths and compete for titles without a great one. Yet Aaron Rogers, largely considered the greatest QB playing today has a fairly poor playoff record (0-1 in 2009, 01 in 2011, 1-1 in 2012, 0-1 in 2013, 1-1 in 2014). That's five trips to the playoffs and just 2 wins.

You conveniently left out the fact that Rodgers was 4-0 in 2010. That's 6 wins and a Super Bowl in 7 years, which definitely isn't bad. Quarterbacks are an essential part of a championship football team.

EDIT - As for the original question, I wouldn't label anyone a draw. I watch for the overall product, not one wrestler.

 

[Wald]

WWE DID make some good talent gains in 1996 remember, like Pillman and it's wrong to say that Davey & Vader were not considered main event... they were and that's why they were put with Shawn - both had a legit claim to taking that title from him and he then chasing them... they didn't do two close finishes with Davey out of loyalty... it was Shawn who put the kaibosh on it each time refusing to job, as he always did in those days.

I know all about how much of an asshole Shawn was back then and I know he particularly screwed over Vader. That said, I don't think Vader in 1996 was much of a draw at that level and certainly couldn't have helped stem the flow of WWF viewers leaving for Nitro. I'd go so far as to sat that by Summerslam 1996 the only two draws WWF had were Bret and Shawn, ion that order.

HBK should have made the switch to heel following his loss to Sid at Survivor Series though, he wasn't working as a face champion and the reaction of the New York crowd to him that night gave him a perfect out for turning on the fans.

 

[HBKperfect23]

I know all about how much of an asshole Shawn was back then and I know he particularly screwed over Vader. That said, I don't think Vader in 1996 was much of a draw at that level and certainly couldn't have helped stem the flow of WWF viewers leaving for Nitro. I'd go so far as to sat that by Summerslam 1996 the only two draws WWF had were Bret and Shawn, ion that order.

HBK should have made the switch to heel following his loss to Sid at Survivor Series though, he wasn't working as a face champion and the reaction of the New York crowd to him that night gave him a perfect out for turning on the fans.

The fans were ready to see Shawn heel again but he couldn't turn at survivor series because of the big comeback at the Royal rumble in San Antonio. Even though it apparently didn't deliver numbers wise, they obviously didn't know that at the time. I think it worked out for the best with him staying face with the upcoming USA vs CAN feud. He could still play the heel in Canada and turn as the angle came to an end.

I'll certainly agree about Vader. He just didn't deliver Like I thought he was going to. Vader/Yoko should have been a killer feud boosting Vader into his feud with Shawn.

According to Cornette, Vader was supposed to have that transitional run and Shawn had them switch to Sid. I think Sid was the better bet, he was over. Shawn always brought the best out in Sid in the ring. Although, I think the best way to go would have been Bulldog. Bulldog and Shawn always had good matches. Bret/Sid at Dec IYH was horrible and Bret/Bulldog could have torn the house down like usual. I think Sid was harmless in this run but Bulldog could have had the best transitional run we have seen.

 

[Nature Boy]

Hey!

First post in I don't know how long...

Funny, I too was always under the impression that Diesel was the worst/lowest drawing Champion.

But in that 1995/6 period they didn't have a whole lot of options to go with.

Ultimate Warrior? He could have been Champion again, and there would have been enough Heels for him to work with (Vader, Mankind, Yokozuna) but as he didn't stay for long we'll never know.

British Bulldog? Don't see that as having been an option myself. A great IC/European/Tag Team Champion but just didn't have 'it' for a World Title run in my view.

Ahmed Johnson? Again, no. He was given a mega push as well as a run with the IC Title, but again, was just another big guy that became boring after too long.

Lex Luger? Could have been a WWF Champion. If he hadn't have returned to WCW, and had been allowed to ditch the lame All American gimmick and had been able to become the 'Total Package' again then perhaps a run as WWF Champion might have worked.

Vader? Absolutely! Why he was never given a run with the World Title or indeed any WWF Title is beyond me. A feud with Warrior could have beed good, as would have been title matches against Bret Hart, Undertaker, Jake Roberts or several others would have been good and filled a void.

Just a few thoughts anyways...

 

[HBKperfect23]

Hey!

First post in I don't know how long...

Funny, I too was always under the impression that Diesel was the worst/lowest drawing Champion.

But in that 1995/6 period they didn't have a whole lot of options to go with.

Ultimate Warrior? He could have been Champion again, and there would have been enough Heels for him to work with (Vader, Mankind, Yokozuna) but as he didn't stay for long we'll never know.

British Bulldog? Don't see that as having been an option myself. A great IC/European/Tag Team Champion but just didn't have 'it' for a World Title run in my view.

Ahmed Johnson? Again, no. He was given a mega push as well as a run with the IC Title, but again, was just another big guy that became boring after too long.

Lex Luger? Could have been a WWF Champion. If he hadn't have returned to WCW, and had been allowed to ditch the lame All American gimmick and had been able to become the 'Total Package' again then perhaps a run as WWF Champion might have worked.

Vader? Absolutely! Why he was never given a run with the World Title or indeed any WWF Title is beyond me. A feud with Warrior could have beed good, as would have been title matches against Bret Hart, Undertaker, Jake Roberts or several others would have been good and filled a void.

Just a few thoughts anyways...

I also thought Nash's run was the lowest but I know both were pretty low.

I'm going to disagree with Warrior. I just don't see Warrior as champion in 96. I could imagine who he would work with.

I'll also disagree with Bulldog. I think he was Taylor made for that transitional run from series-rumble. Shawn and Davey always had good matches. The December IYH with Bret could have been huge. It would be the Dec95 IYH/SumSl92 rubber match. Those two always had great matches.

 

[FlairFan2003]

You conveniently left out the fact that Rodgers was 4-0 in 2010. That's 6 wins and a Super Bowl in 7 years, which definitely isn't bad. Quarterbacks are an essential part of a championship football team.

EDIT - As for the original question, I wouldn't label anyone a draw. I watch for the overall product, not one wrestler.

Yeah, that's one great run sandwiched around a lot of failure.....Peyton Manning won a SB too but is largely viewed as one of the great playoff underachievers of all time.

These stats also don't factor in who the champ was facing at a given time. Kevin Nash had to headline a S-Slam against Mabel for crying out loud .... how was that expected to draw ??

Flair basically only fought 3 people (Hogan, Piper, Savage) from Jan 92-Sept 92 and drew well but didn't draw as well facing Ultimate Warrior (who was fired shortly thereafter), maybe Warrior was the problem....

In the end, if the roster is weak the champ wont draw....if fans don't like the opponent the champ wont draw....there are some guys who through the years were able to draw better than others simply due to their popularity (at least in comparison to everyone else at the time) but they were few (Hogan for sure, Flair, Hart - WWE always went back to him, Austin at his height, Cena today) but even then the uptick in business is influenced by their opponents and the quality of the card as a whole.

Even as great a draw as Hogan was in his 80s heyday, his biggest matches were against guys like Savage & Andre, superstars and legends, he drew against Earthquake, Kamala, & Zeus but not as much. In WCW he drew big against Flair, Sting, Piper.....some of the greatest stars of all time, but not very well against Beefcake, Earthquake, and was disappointing against Vader.

People put way too much cred in attendance and TV ratings numbers based solely on who the champ is.

Heck in WCW Goldberg was consistently booked into second tier feuds and almost never main evented in meaningful storylines during his celebrated 1st title reign....he wins the title in early July and wrestle on the mid card in supporting matches on the July, Aug, & Sept PPV and shares main event billing at the Oct PPV. Hogan had the biggest storylines and top matches during this time, not him, but we parse out credit/blame for WCW success during this time to him because he was champ, which isn't fair because most of that time he wasn't featured at the top of the card storyline wise.

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

While technically he may have been, I don't think it's fair to him. I don't think you could hold anybody accountable in the mid 90s, cause nobody could draw then. WCW had Hogan, Savage, Sting and Flair and they couldn't draw shit either. Nobody was watching wrestling at that time cause of the steroid scandal. It wasn't until the NWO where people started paying attention cause the word got out about Hulk Hogan turning "bad". Society was changing at that point, yet wrestling was still stuck like it was the 80s with their lame gimmicks. Whether it was Mantaur and DUke the Dumpster Droese, or the freaking Dungeon of Doom and monster trucks matches in WCW. It didn't matter, both feds were lost in the times at that point. No single person could change it except for Hogan. And it took him completely going heel for that to happen.

 

[whoopin' ass]

This has been discussed for years and the answer always depends on if you are an HBK fan or not. Those who don't like him say this is proof he was no good but when you really look at it, WWF was in a transitional time and he happened to be the champ so it makes him look bad. One man can't carry a company so you can't say Shawn was a horrible champ just because the company was going though hard times. Was Austin a bad champ his first run? I am pretty sure WCW was still beating them weekly when he was made champ. You can look at it as Shawn was the lowest drawing champ but I question how many people would have been tuning in if he wasn't champ? Maybe he was the draw that got them those buys which they wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

 

[Just Do It]

House show business picked up with Shawn. I shudder to think what business would have been like if both he and Bret were gone in 1996. What feuds would have we had? Sid vs Mankind??

 

[relentless1]

This has been discussed for years and the answer always depends on if you are an HBK fan or not. Those who don't like him say this is proof he was no good but when you really look at it, WWF was in a transitional time and he happened to be the champ so it makes him look bad. One man can't carry a company so you can't say Shawn was a horrible champ just because the company was going though hard times. Was Austin a bad champ his first run? I am pretty sure WCW was still beating them weekly when he was made champ. You can look at it as Shawn was the lowest drawing champ but I question how many people would have been tuning in if he wasn't champ? Maybe he was the draw that got them those buys which they wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

Hogan was one man who carried a company

Austin won the belt at WM 14, two weeks later the WWF beat WCW in the ratings and never looked back, so you could certainly say he was a great draw as champ.

Fact is that HBK wasn't the draw he could have been, same as Diesel and thats wholly down to the fact that they weren't able to act like the heels/tweeners that they were. Nobody was interested in seeing a manufactured babyface Diesel or Shawn and Vince wouldn't get that concept until Austin

 

[Wald]

Hogan was one man who carried a company

Austin won the belt at WM 14, two weeks later the WWF beat WCW in the ratings and never looked back, so you could certainly say he was a great draw as champ.

Fact is that HBK wasn't the draw he could have been, same as Diesel and thats wholly down to the fact that they weren't able to act like the heels/tweeners that they were. Nobody was interested in seeing a manufactured babyface Diesel or Shawn and Vince wouldn't get that concept until Austin

That's exactly it. Diesel got over as bad ass biker who was cool as and yet within a few weeks they were putting him in promo videos like this.

[YOUTUBE]imbS4v3pHD4[/YOUTUBE]

My brother had stopped watching around 1992/93 but Diesel was drawing him back to the product until he saw this and thought it was one of the lamest things going. I'd imagine he wasn't the only one to think that.

HBK's botched face run was even worse. People loved Michaels as a heel who could flat out go in the ring but they booked him way to strong against monsters like Diesel and Vader, whilst putting him in the ring dancing with children and doing nonsense like the Kliq Cam. HBK's run was the basic template for Super Cena at his absolute worst.

 

[FlairFan2003]

This has been discussed for years and the answer always depends on if you are an HBK fan or not. Those who don't like him say this is proof he was no good but when you really look at it, WWF was in a transitional time and he happened to be the champ so it makes him look bad. One man can't carry a company so you can't say Shawn was a horrible champ just because the company was going though hard times. Was Austin a bad champ his first run? I am pretty sure WCW was still beating them weekly when he was made champ. You can look at it as Shawn was the lowest drawing champ but I question how many people would have been tuning in if he wasn't champ? Maybe he was the draw that got them those buys which they wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

In all fairness, the WWE product was doing extremely well leading into Mania 98, a lot of the attention actually coming from Mike Tyson's involvement, but HBK was the champ during this uptick (although he wasn't wrestling much in 98 due to his R-Rumble back injury) and Austin was the main opponent/rival. The product as a whole was generating a lot of buzz in the media for it's abandonement of family Disney style programming and Tyson, WWE easily could have taken over the ratings lead without Austin as champ.

Also, this was the exact time when WCW sued Ric Flair and took him off TV, which caused a massive backlash from fans.

Trivia Note: What was Nitro's last head to head rating win over RAW when both shows aired original/live programming ? The Sept 14 episode when Flair returned from his lawsuit exile, an entire episode basically devoted to his return.

Bottom line, WWE was riding high with a great deal of momentum and WCW was not as the tide turned in 1998, the program as a WHOLE, not just one guy, was doing well (The Rock, HHH, & Mankind as well as Taker were all WAY OVER during this stretch). That certainly helped keep push the show over Nitro for the viewership lead. Still, Austin & HBK were the two guys at the top of card when this was happening, HBK deserves a lot (but not all) of the credit for that.