Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
www.merriam-webster.com said:an encompassing political or societal entity formed by uniting smaller or more localized entities: as a : a federal government b : a union of organizations.
Of course that’s not it. There’s more, you just have to wait until I decide to post my other reasons.Is that it? Seriously?
I won’t deny that during the time they went by the name of WWWF they were successful. However, overall, they were more successful when they were known as the WWF. They had way bigger attendances, made a lot more money, had higher ratings, and I could go on and on given reasons why they were more successful under the WWF name but I’m sure you know them.Unfortunately for you, I'll instantly hit back with the fact that for quite some time the WWF was more successful when it had been the WWWF.
Where is your prove? You can say that they were better recognized and were booking bigger stars all you want but can you back it up?Additionally the WWWF was once better recognised and was booking bigger stars when it was the CWC.
Why does it not provide adequate reason? The name WWF is more fitting because they were more recognized more by that name than they were by any other name they’ve ever hard, which includes the WWE. Also, they have had much more success when they were known as the WWF. So it’s only more fitting because of those two reasons and because of the reasons I previously gave.The name has evolved with the product, and just because they happened to be using a particular acronym during the golden age nobody remembers and the advent of crash TV, that does not provide adequate reason to stick with it.
Of course thats not it. Theres more, you just have to wait until I decide to post my other reasons.
I wont deny that during the time they went by the name of WWWF they were successful. However, overall, they were more successful when they were known as the WWF. They had way bigger attendances, made a lot more money, had higher ratings, and I could go on and on given reasons why they were more successful under the WWF name but Im sure you know them.
Where is your prove? You can say that they were better recognized and were booking bigger stars all you want but can you back it up?
During the time they were known as the WWF, they had some of the bigger superstars they could get. I already listed some of the bigger ones so I dont think you need me to list them again.
Furthermore, lets look at some of the buys and ratings the shows received when they were known as the WWF:
Raws average rating from 1998-2001:
1998: 4.44
1999: 6.12
2000: 5.87
2001: 4.64
Thats only four years (about the time the Attitude Era lasted) and it shows that while ratings did fluctuate they were still very successful. Also, they have been more successful when it comes to pay per view revenue.
Why does it not provide adequate reason? The name WWF is more fitting because they were more recognized more by that name than they were by any other name theyve ever hard, which includes the WWE. Also, they have had much more success when they were known as the WWF. So its only more fitting because of those two reasons and because of the reasons I previously gave.