Who Was The Worst Money-Drawing WWE/F Champion Of All Time?

[californiachef84]

Look at the post below yours dipshit.

Goddamnit you are dumb. Okay, so, Nash as WCW champion, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE RATINGS ARE. What matters is WHICH DIRECTION THEY WENT.

It doesn't matter what the ratings are? Are you freaking kidding me? Why does Nielson even exist then? Why do the network executives always check the ratings? Why do television shows get cancelled if their ratings aren't good enough? Just because ratings don't matter? When you get back from Namby Pamby land let me know and MAYBE we can have a serious conversation? "It doesn't matter what the ratings are" is beyond any shadow of a freaking doubt THE DUMBEST THING ANYONE HAS EVER SAID IN THESE FORUMS!

Nash was NOT champion mid to late 1998, he became WCW champion for the first time in DECEMBER 1998, from there on out is basically when WCW went on a decline. DECLINE means they LOST MONEY.

Funny how late 1998 and December are the EXACT SAME THING! God you are just insane! All I was stating was that from the middle part of 1998 to the end of 1998 that Nash was second only to Goldberg in fan popularity and merchandise sales. Nash had the Wolfpac and was a HUGE DRAW! When Nash and Goldberg met at Starrcade it was a huge match! Nash won and business remained good until September of 1999 (If you don't believe me, read Eric Bischoff's book). Did I really have to spell that all out for you?

So you are FLAT OUT WRONG with your hypothesis... "facts" are just not on your side.

Miz as champ getting 3.0 means dick. WWE was consistently around that before and after, not much of a change.

Of course because ratings mean nothing to you. Those meaningless little ratings...

Not only that but using ratings in 2011 as your only way of looking at things is fuckin stupid. More channels, more stuff on the internet. I watch just as much wrestling now as I did then only I don't watch it on TV, I watch on the net, so "ratings" for me are down, but really I still watch the same.

You propose that just as many people watch wrestling now as they did even just 5 or 6 years ago? However, they catch it on youtube and other sites like that instead of watching it on monday night right?

One problem with that theory is that when you watch Raw the crowd reaction is NO WHERE NEAR what it used to be and they are not selling out areans like they were even just a few years ago. Take all of that in conjuction with the television ratings and you have what we call LESS PEOPLE ARE WATCHING WRESTLING NOW THAN THEY WERE 6 YEARS AGO!!!

In addition, I did not JUST point at ratings to justify my post. I also pointed at merchandise sales and ppv buyrates... funny how you didn't mention that.

You wanna know what you should use to measure it smart guy? WWE's fucking balance sheet. Because that, get this, doesn't show you how many people watched the show, but shows you HOW MUCH MONEY THE COMPANY MADE. Look at their balance sheets and tell me what it says? It says that they MADE MONEY. Hmmm, weird huh. Publicly traded company and you can look at their books to see if they made money and exactly how much. So fuckin strange right? Maybe you're right though, maybe I should look only at ratings, which is flawed beyond belief to base my entire opinion on.

Like I stated above, "smart guy", the ppv buyrates, merchandise sales, and television ratings are NO WHERE NEAR where they were just 6 years ago... Once again, In my original post I said those three things were the reasoning, not "only the ratings" MORON!

Your argument is false for so many reasons it's unbelievable you can even start up a computer. Nash was NOT champion in mid-late 1998. He won the title in December, so right there you're already wrong. Second, you compare ratings from over 10 years ago to today. It's a different climate and totally different media landscape. Comparing ratings from 1998-1999 to today is like comparing pitching statistics from the early 1900s to today. It's not at all the same so you can't really use it.

December= late 1998... I don't see how this is hard. Like I posted above, Nash was the leader of the most popular stable in WCW in mid 1998. He then won the title in December. What is so hard for you to understand?

Not only that but you stil think his WCW reign should even be in the discussion. It's not the same thing. I don't care if it's the same belt. By that logic, you should only look at guys with the current spinner belt. Yea that makes sense. Fact is, they are 2 totally different companies. The backing of the champion is totally different. I don't even think you should use World Title holders at all because the thread says "WWE/F champion" which is NOT the World Title. Both guys aren't looked at the same way. The WWF/E champion has always been the flagship of the company. Even with 2 belts that title has always been more prestigious and looked at as more important.

__________________



This is merely your opinion... There were PLENTY of other posters who mentioned WHC reigns from the likes of Swagger, Kane, etc... To you there is a difference. However, the OP never specifically specified to the contrary.

And just for your information, the WHC was treated as the BIGGER and TOP belt when it was on Raw and Triple H had it when he was the leader of Evolution. So you are WRONG once again.

 

[SickJames]

Holy shit dude. Kane's less than 24 hour reign actually DID draw more.

think about this, if nash had a YEAR of the WWE LOSING MONEY, then he would have drawn NEGATIVE MONIES huh? So there actually is no fucking way Kane LOST that amount of money, just like all the others had no way of losing the company that much money.

So how the fuck does nash "benefit the company" by losing it the most money? If you have 3 people. One person adds shit to the house and increases the value, the other pretty much keeps it the same but only stays in it for a few days, the other trashes it for a year. Who helped the house the most? In order, it'd be person 1, then 2, then 3. Even though person 2 only had the house for a few days, he didn't fuck it up as much as person 3. Nash fucked the house up.

Do you get it yet?

dude that's dumb logic, this is about drawing money not losing it, Kane didnt draw anything in his first reign, he didnt have the chance, Nash drew something, anything was more than Kane

a 0 draw is equal to a negative, but drawing then losing means something too u dipshitted imbisel and i dont care if i spelled it wrong, i'll fuckin gun it on my dick

 

[harrythem]

a 0 draw is equal to a negative, but drawing then losing means something too u dipshitted imbisel and i dont care if i spelled it wrong, i'll fuckin gun it on my dick

So, by your logic, I can call my bank up and say "I wont repay my overdraft because a negative is the same as having a zero balance?" Good to see you cant achieve success with either English or Maths.

The only answer can be Kevin Nash. He might've drawn in WCW but this is all about worst drawing WWE champion and that was clearly Kevin Nash. HBK didn't draw much more in 96 but he was more of a success than Nash was. Anyone trying to say anyone else (especially the short reigns like Swagger/Ziggler/Kane's 1 day run) are basing that on personal opinion because these have happened when the WWE is more of an all-round cast, instead of having a main guy that draws the houses. Hogan, as the face of WWE, drew monster, Savage drew monster. Warrior drew well (steriods and being one dimensional limited him, but still drew a profit) Hitman drew acceptably, Nash drew dreadfully. HBK drew poorly (not as bad as Nash) then HBK drew acceptably. Austin drew monster, Rock drew monster. HHH Drew well. Lesnar drew well. Cena drew well (not as well now, but that's mainly due to the poor overall company direction).

The fact with that list? Nash was the worst, PPV numbers and house show attendances back it up. Any other answer is, honestly, the answer of a divvy cunt

 

[nbda1997]

Uh, shouldn't Khali get this almost automatically? Around this time people were still dumb founded by how large of a guy he was but I think it started settle in (like two nanoseconds after he actually won the title) how much of a horrible idea it is to have him as a champion. It was like propelling Giant Gonzalez into the top spot after his match with Taker. He can't do much ergo, bad champion, no money draw.

The thing about Khali is that his title reign was purely a vehicle to springboard business in India (which was and is still a major emerging market). WWE television is heavily edited for India to make Khali seem MUCH more important than he actually is. Putting the belt on him for a while just allowed them to build up some footage portraying him as the champion (which is probably being used over and over again ).

 

[vthokie8]

When it comes to the worst drawing champion of all time I have to say its HBK, let me explain. I feel when it comes to the word "Drawing" I think of the face of the company. Yes, Swagger may very well be one of the worst champs of all time, but it wasn't his responsibility to draw an audience for the entire company, thats what Cena was for.

Agreed 100% It is hard to base "drawing" power on a champion these days, unless they are the "main guy" in the company. Yes, there are two champions, but we all know one of them usually whoever is the champion on Raw is "the guy." Guys like Khali and Swagger may not have been the best champions of all time (Khali is probably the worst next to Arquette) but it wasn't there goal to really draw the buys. During Khali's title run in 07 Cena and Orton was the storyline they expected to "draw" Khali only fueded with Batista during his title run and those matches were either a warm up for Cena/Orton or early in the card such as at Unforgiven 07. During Swagger's run Cena and Batista were the "draw" for the PPV's such as Over the Limit and at Fatal 4 Way you had Cena with Sheamus, Orton and Edge plus the Nexus storyline had just took off. There was also bad booked title runs, for example Flair's title run was booked poorly IMO and the Mysterio crap this past week was awful, Cena should have just won the tournament if they wanted him to have the belt so bad. All this being said, I think that Diesel was the worst draw. I mean given his match at Rumble 95 with Hart was good, but that wasn't the draw of the PPV, the Rumble was same with Mania the Bigelow/LT match was the main draw. So if you really look at it Diesel's only main even matches as champion was a tag team match at King of the Ring where he and Bigelow wrestled Tatanka and Sid and at Summer Slam against Mabel both of which were awful matches on awful cards. Survivor Series drew, but mainly because of Hart and the "Wild Card" match where Shawn got "injured." I mean this guy had pretty much an entire year to draw huge and kind of fell flat.

 

[mayankeagle]

If you consider champions who had a title reign that was not short, then it has to be Diesel. Sheamus/ Swagger might have been worse but their title reigns were very short - the same logic holds true for Ziggler or others who didn't even get a decent long title run.

It doesn't matter about how well Nash drew in WCW and in what direction the company went with the NWO - we are talking only about WWF/E reign here. In the WWE, he didn't draw well and that's the bottom-line. Sid is another guy who didn't draw much.

 

[berlinbrawler]

Statistically speaking Diesel was the worst drawing champion of all time. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Granted, it was during a period in which business was in the toilet. Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels didn't draw much better. No one did.

Champions who totally bombed is another matter altogether. Top pf the head I'm thinking of the Great Kahli (although in the WWE's defense it was a desperation move because pretty much all the big stars were out with injury) and Jack Swagger. Swagger winning the MitB match at Wrestlemania was a big HUH???-moment for me because the last thing we had seen him do prior to that was losing a feud to Santino. And then he tried being the modern day Mr. Perfect. And his first opponent? The Big Show. Who wrote that shit???

the same logic holds true for Ziggler or others who didn't even get a decent long title run.

As far as I'm concerned Ziggler has never been champion. That thing that lasted a few minutes and wasn't even the result of a match didn't count in my book. That was just piss poor writing by the WWE.

 

[MEGATRON2507]

This thread reminds me of the old Ric Flair interview in which he stated that Bret Hart never made any money for the WWE (or something along those lines).

I mean during Brets era the WWE had quite a few guys that carried the strap but just never drew money.

Guys like Sid, Diesel, Yoko hell I'd even add HBK and Taker to the list, even Bob Backlund had the belt for crying out loud. None of those guys ever made serious money for the WWE.

And it wasn't just the guys who had the strap. Guys like Luger, Vader, Owen, Jarrett, Hall.... I could go on. All these guys have to shoulder some blame for the WWE having one of its worst spells ever.

Anyway like already mentioned, Diesel is statistically the worst drawing champ, so I guess that answers the question.

 

[I_got_bant_for_idiocy]

HBK is the worse drawing EVER!!!!!!!!! soon as he became champ the ratings started to slip, WCW was taking over while hbk was wrestling the british bulldog, vader, and sid woooooow what a boring era of wrestling kind of like the john cena era.... ratings were at the lowest when hbk was wrestling, buyrates low and as soon as he dropped the belt to stone cold wwe became number 1 again... HBK u almost bankrupted the wwe thank god for stone cold and mick foley and the rock and dx became better soon as hbk left, and when hbk joined dx again it got lame.... he is the show stopper but drawing power

 

[James]

Sid and Big Daddy come to mind. I liked them both because they were with HBK at first but they could not get draw money. They just wanted to see Sid beat up HBK because HBK was unstoppable. And Big Daddy, well, eh'?

 

[Trill Co$by]

HBK is the worse drawing EVER!!!!!!!!! soon as he became champ the ratings started to slip, WCW was taking over while hbk was wrestling the british bulldog, vader, and sid woooooow what a boring era of wrestling kind of like the john cena era.... ratings were at the lowest when hbk was wrestling, buyrates low and as soon as he dropped the belt to stone cold wwe became number 1 again... HBK u almost bankrupted the wwe thank god for stone cold and mick foley and the rock and dx became better soon as hbk left, and when hbk joined dx again it got lame.... he is the show stopper but drawing power

And yet the man still managed to create classic rivalries with Bret Hart, Stone Cold, Undertaker, Triple H, Kurt Angle, Chris Jericho, Randy Orton, Kane, Vince McMahon, Ric Flair, and countless more. I'll admit ratings were slipping, but HBK seriously wasn't the entire reason nor was he the worst draw power.

That feat goes to none other than... Rey Mysterio. The guy had such terrible buy rates that he only had it for about an hour and a half... (joke)

In all seriousness, I would have to say that Bob Backlund was the worst at drawing in money. Sure he didn't hold it that long, but putting the title on him was enough to warrant it.