FlairFan2003
Mid-Card Championship Winner
Also, a bit off topic here but with regards to "drawing power" - a lot of that has to do with how the match and feud as well as the undercard are booked, how they generate buzz among fans.
There are a handfull of guys who "catch lightening in a bottle", who have personnas and the luck of timing to become really big, able to draw against almost anyone, but these guys, like Hogan, Austin, & Goldberg are rare. Often it takes a trememndous amount of charisma and star power on the part of the wrestler AND good entertaining booking to become a major attraction.
Much of the success of a major card also deals with the interest in the undercard. This past WM was helped significantly by the "end of an era" confrontation between Taker & HHH. Without that match this past WM would have lost a lot of it's appeal. Think of the really big shows from years past, almost every one had at one or two undercard matches that were heavily promoted, very appealing to fans, almost on par with the actual main event.
Ive said before if you look up atendance figures for WWE and pro wrestling in general you can see a slide starting before 1991. WWE was already in a downturn domestically before Hart realy became the top guy late 92/early 93. Im not a Hart fan, enjoyed his matches, found his character boring and his mic skills average at best, however, it's not like he took over as The Main Guy in 1987 after the massive success of WrestleMania III, with WWE growing exponentially while the NWA was still selling out throughout the south and mid west and all of the sudden business dropped like a boulder off a cliff. WWE and wrestling business in general was in decline before Hart became champ, for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with him. And no one can say that WWE booking was particularly interesting between 93-95, when guys like Papa Shango, Isaac Yankem, and Mabel are your main eventers you have some issues. Fact is if WCW had their act together they would have eclisped the WWE audience back then, but during that same time frame they offered little beyond re hashing old Flair fueds vs Steamboat & Sting.
In retrospect I do think it was a mistake for WWE to turn HBK into a goody too shoes fan fav in 96. Maybe as a tweener fan fav he could have excelled, like Flair in WCW circa 1989, but Vince was not good at promotimng those types of characters. Fact was up until The Attitude Era McMahon and company constantly tried to replicate the Hogan model of a dominant, hero type fan fave champ, although by the mid 90s the twise was they wanted someone who could also deliver a 4 or 5 star match. Hart was good at playing this character, although again I found him a bit boring, just an opinion. HBK (and Kevin Nash as well) were not. They were however both extremely entertaining and charismatic performers who could generate much fan support with only subtle changes to their characters, guys like that are actually great for booking purposes because you dont have to make whole sale changes to their presentation to get them over as heels or faces. Vince & Company however were never really good at that, at least not until the entire promotional philosophy switched post 1996. And that guys is in no way a fault of either Brett, Shawn, Nash, Taker, or anyone else, that falls on creative.
HBK proved his popularity and his ability to draw interest during his post 2002 return, he was definately booked better than he was for much of 95-96, and he was allowed to be a more tweener character, an elder statesman character but one who wasnt kissing babies and helping the elderly cross the street per se. Likewise as a heel HBK was instrumental in the large success of both Royal Rumle 98 and certainly WM 98. To look at one brief period during part of 1996 and say he was never a good draw is insane. That is like saying Hogan couldnt draw because his matches havent elevated TNA numbers that much. That is one small cross section over a short period of time in a much larger career, with a lot of mitigating factors involved.
HBK earned his reputation as a jerk and like Hart was on top of the company during a relatively slow time business wise. It doesnt mean overall that he wasnt a major star attraction. He was a major part of the programming when the company hit it's upswing in late 97 as well lets not forget, as well as his top level fueds that drew well for WWE post 2002. How you are booked has a lot to do with how much you can draw as a main attraction, only absolute legends can continue draw against weak opponents or after lousy booking and it usually takes many years of top level performance prior to that for those guys to establish themselves enough they can pull that off, and only a few ever have. It's just not fair to dismiss either Hart or HBK simply by saying "business wasnt as good then" -- there is alot more to it and much of it really wasnt their fault.
There are a handfull of guys who "catch lightening in a bottle", who have personnas and the luck of timing to become really big, able to draw against almost anyone, but these guys, like Hogan, Austin, & Goldberg are rare. Often it takes a trememndous amount of charisma and star power on the part of the wrestler AND good entertaining booking to become a major attraction.
Much of the success of a major card also deals with the interest in the undercard. This past WM was helped significantly by the "end of an era" confrontation between Taker & HHH. Without that match this past WM would have lost a lot of it's appeal. Think of the really big shows from years past, almost every one had at one or two undercard matches that were heavily promoted, very appealing to fans, almost on par with the actual main event.
Ive said before if you look up atendance figures for WWE and pro wrestling in general you can see a slide starting before 1991. WWE was already in a downturn domestically before Hart realy became the top guy late 92/early 93. Im not a Hart fan, enjoyed his matches, found his character boring and his mic skills average at best, however, it's not like he took over as The Main Guy in 1987 after the massive success of WrestleMania III, with WWE growing exponentially while the NWA was still selling out throughout the south and mid west and all of the sudden business dropped like a boulder off a cliff. WWE and wrestling business in general was in decline before Hart became champ, for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with him. And no one can say that WWE booking was particularly interesting between 93-95, when guys like Papa Shango, Isaac Yankem, and Mabel are your main eventers you have some issues. Fact is if WCW had their act together they would have eclisped the WWE audience back then, but during that same time frame they offered little beyond re hashing old Flair fueds vs Steamboat & Sting.
In retrospect I do think it was a mistake for WWE to turn HBK into a goody too shoes fan fav in 96. Maybe as a tweener fan fav he could have excelled, like Flair in WCW circa 1989, but Vince was not good at promotimng those types of characters. Fact was up until The Attitude Era McMahon and company constantly tried to replicate the Hogan model of a dominant, hero type fan fave champ, although by the mid 90s the twise was they wanted someone who could also deliver a 4 or 5 star match. Hart was good at playing this character, although again I found him a bit boring, just an opinion. HBK (and Kevin Nash as well) were not. They were however both extremely entertaining and charismatic performers who could generate much fan support with only subtle changes to their characters, guys like that are actually great for booking purposes because you dont have to make whole sale changes to their presentation to get them over as heels or faces. Vince & Company however were never really good at that, at least not until the entire promotional philosophy switched post 1996. And that guys is in no way a fault of either Brett, Shawn, Nash, Taker, or anyone else, that falls on creative.
HBK proved his popularity and his ability to draw interest during his post 2002 return, he was definately booked better than he was for much of 95-96, and he was allowed to be a more tweener character, an elder statesman character but one who wasnt kissing babies and helping the elderly cross the street per se. Likewise as a heel HBK was instrumental in the large success of both Royal Rumle 98 and certainly WM 98. To look at one brief period during part of 1996 and say he was never a good draw is insane. That is like saying Hogan couldnt draw because his matches havent elevated TNA numbers that much. That is one small cross section over a short period of time in a much larger career, with a lot of mitigating factors involved.
HBK earned his reputation as a jerk and like Hart was on top of the company during a relatively slow time business wise. It doesnt mean overall that he wasnt a major star attraction. He was a major part of the programming when the company hit it's upswing in late 97 as well lets not forget, as well as his top level fueds that drew well for WWE post 2002. How you are booked has a lot to do with how much you can draw as a main attraction, only absolute legends can continue draw against weak opponents or after lousy booking and it usually takes many years of top level performance prior to that for those guys to establish themselves enough they can pull that off, and only a few ever have. It's just not fair to dismiss either Hart or HBK simply by saying "business wasnt as good then" -- there is alot more to it and much of it really wasnt their fault.