Hunter's Torn Quad

Though they hooked up in early to mid 2000.

A press release from Spike TV about the numbers:

Long story short, HHH had 'the look' and they were hell bent on getting him over.

Meltzer. Quite the 'punishment' for Randall.

Did nothing for Koloff though, he was only used as an transitional champion. Did nothing for him in the WWWF, but it made his career everywhere else.

We don't know what led to Punk laying Burke out with the chair, so it could be accidental, Burke could have provoked Punk, etc. Not only that, if the post-match Go 2 Sleep doesn't air, then they could still leave the storyline open ended.

Wrestlemag ECW spoilers complete. Smackdown spoilers in full:

I've heard nothing credible to make me doubt it. Look at it like this: They don't want to beat Hunter, because he's their chosen one They can't beat Austin, because Ventura can't raise the heels hand. They want the belt on Hunter, but can't have him beat Austin for it for the reason stated above. So, what do you do? Put Mankind in the match so he can beat Austin, so that Ventura can raise his hand, and so that Hunter can beat him the next night and the title can be on the person they want it on in the first place.

F4W Those are numbers to be proud of.

To be fair, twice is more than most. True, but if you're going to use a quote to back up your argument, such as it is, it helps to make sure the quote is accurately describing the events it talks about.

The kayfabe reason for Edge and Orton not happening is that Cena/HBK went long. I thought the main event was pretty good. Not great; certainly not this ****3/4 match that some people online have said. But it was great fun.

What the hell is this ring nonsense you keep talking about? I gave you a timeout because you were, and still are, being an ass. Stop it.

Austin did refuse to feud with Jarrett, but he never refused to feud with Billy Gunn. What happened with that was he was booked to wrestle him the day after a PPV and Austin felt too banged up from the match the night before, so he got the match canceled. Austin didn't refuse to drop the title to HHH at Summerslam. He had long agreed to drop the title to him. Mankind was put in there so a babyface could win the match and Jesse Ventura wouldn't have to raise a heel's hand at the the end of the match. That 411 quote posted is a joke. It makes it sound like Austin repeatedly walked out with no warning, when he only did that twice. Once the night after WM XVIII, because of the Scott Hall deal, and the second time later that year over the Brock Lesnar deal. Austin has walked away a few other times, but that had nothing to do with wrestling (basically, over the rights to the Steve Austin name in non-WWE stuff that Steve might want to do) and came after talking with Vince, so it wasn't like the company were blindsided.

Main event over, and spoilers are fully edited.

And it looks like the Edge/Orton thing was a mistake, as nothing about it was ever mentioned again. Edited again, and it looks like we've got a long main event tonight.

I agree with some of that HTQ. When you reference the locker room though, you have to consider, great buyrates for whom? It's great when the company draws well, but for the wrestlers left behind in the roster crunch, it means squat. Sometimes, good business for the company as a whole means bad luck for some people on the roster. If it means making millions of dollars, then few promoters would take into account having to let go of some lower level talents they weren't using anyway. Honestly, the way things turned out obviously Goldberg, Kevin Nash, etc. weren't worth the money since WWE did bring them in, and they did not last. Them not being worth the money had nothing to do with them and everything to do with how they were booked. Booked well, to his strengths, Goldberg was money in the bank. Though, you might have a point with Nash. As far as stacking the card, I don't have solid numbers on this but I've often wondered about the diminishing value of wrestling talent. By that I mean the first big star will draw the crowd, the second will draw a smaller additional crowd, and so on. By the time you bring in the 10th or 11th star, you're getting a fraction of additional interest, if that. Look at how WWE eventually played this. Instead we got Flair in 2002, Nash and Steiner in 2003, Goldberg in 2003-04, etc. They all kept business going as needed. Now if you run the Invasion, you push out talented low-carders in favor of main-event talent. You draw big that year, but you blow interest in big matches in the future, and you also fail to develop your next wave of stars. And that's going to bite you in the ass down the road. This is where smart booking comes in, which is a tall order to ask with WWE, but the point remains. As for blowing interest in big matches in the future, again, smart booking takes care of that. Have some big singles matches early, extend the run with tags or six-mans, leaving the ultimate night of singles bouts for Wrestlemania. In the mean time, build up the midcarders to where they're special, so when the first run of Invasion Mk II is over, the other guys are special enough to mean something so that when you plug them into the top, you've got fresh main events and business continues to do well. The problems with the Invasion were not the people involved, but the booking. It's the same with any invasion angle that gets run all over the world. The right booking, booking for business over ego, means it always does well to some degree.

Wrestlemag

Before talking about how badly the Invasion was botched and what could have been done to make it bigger, let’s bring up some 2002 PPV numbers to put things in perspective: May, Judgment Day (Austin vs. Undertaker) – 405,000 buys June, King of the Ring (Austin vs. Benoit vs. Jericho) – 445,000 buys July, Invasion (Alliance vs. WWE) – 775,000 buys (the most successful non-Wrestlemania WWE PPV) August. Summerslam, (Austin vs. Angle and Rock vs. Booker) – 565,000 September, Unforgiven (Austin vs. Angle) – 350,000 October, No Mercy (Austin vs. Van Dam vs. Angle – 325,000 November, Survivor Series (Alliance vs. WWE, Losers must disband forever) – 450,000 The Invasion PPV, headlined by what was essentially a WWE vs. WWE ten-man tag drew an incredible number, the best non-WM number ever. Four months later, the storyline culminates with almost a 40% drop off in buys. For what should have been the biggest storyline of the modern era, there is no way you can call that anything other than a complete disaster. Now, onto what appears to be the biggest bone of contention, the lack of ‘name’ stars on the WCW side. People argue that it wouldn’t have been cost-effective to bring in the bigger WCW stars, Goldberg, Flair, Nash, etc, because it would have cost too much money from having to buy out their Time Warner contracts, pay them enough to get them on board and so on. Well, take a look at that Invasion buy rate, an incredibly high 775,000, and take a moment to realize that what drew that number was a ten-man tag where, DDP and Booker aside, everyone was a current WWE wrestler. Instead of Booker T, Rhyno, DDP and The Dudley’s representing ‘The Alliance’, think of this team representing WCW: Goldberg, Kevin Nash, Ric Flair, Booker T and DDP. With six weeks of strong television angles, there is no way that that team representing WCW taking on the aforementioned WWE team would have drawn less than 775,000 buys. With Goldberg, Booker T and DDP wrestling their first matches in WWE and Flair and Nash wrestling in WWE for the first time in eight and five years respectively, how many buys do you think they could have got for that? At least a million, easy, I think. WWE’s cut of that 1 million buys PPV money would have been at least $25 million, and that might be generous. Assuming WWE gained $25 million from such a PPV (and that's not taking into account merchandise, etc), let’s speculate on what salaries the aforementioned WCW team would have been paid, and also what it might have cost WWE to buy their Time Warner contracts: For Goldberg, Nash and DDP, let’s assume it cost a total of $15 million to but out their contracts, and for Flair and Booker, let’s assume it costs a total of $6 million. That’s $21 million of the $25 taken care of, so already the Invasion Mk II has paid for what it took to buy out the contracts, and the storyline is only six weeks old. As for salary, we’ll put Goldberg and Nash on $1.5M per year (a compromise on their WCW salary; not quite as high as that, but enough so they’re two of the highest paid wrestlers, which placates their ego and gets them accepting a salary less than their WCW one), Flair can get $1m per year and Page and Booker T can get $750,000 per year. That’s a total of $5.5 million a year, and added to what it cost to buy out their Time Warner contracts gives us a total of $26.5 million dollars. Therefore, with one PPV, and that 1 million buys might be at the low end of what Invasion Mk II would have drawn, WWE have, in one night, raked in almost enough money to cover, not only what it cost to buy the contracts of Goldberg and company, but also their salaries for the first year. As for what you do for the rest of the year, and this is just with WCW guys, you’ve got: Goldberg/Nash/Flair/Booker/DDP vs. Rock, Austin, Hunter, Angle, Undertaker, Kane, Jericho, Benoit in numerous money drawing PPV matches and ratings drawing TV matches, with any one of the PPV’s easily making up the rest of the shortfall to pay the money it took to get the WCW guys on board and keep them there. I know the big argument against this is that it would upset the locker room, but that’s too damn bad on this one. Going balls out with this angle, and that means bringing in Goldberg, Nash, etc, while it may upset the wrestlers, means months of monster PPV buys and bigger paydays for everyone. Instead of Summerslam drawing 565,000 for Austin vs. Angle and Booker T vs. The Rock, you could have drawn infinitely more with, theoretically, all ten of Invasion Mk II main eventers facing off in singles matches. That means a potential Summerslam card of Goldberg vs. Angle, Nash vs. Kane, Ric Flair vs. Chris Jericho, Booker T vs. Steve Austin and DDP vs. The Undertaker. Imagine what kind of PPV buy rate bonanza a loaded card like that could have drawn. The Invasion angle was the biggest and most frustrating dropped ball in the history of wrestling.

I liked the original better: Instead of just punishing the guy out of hand, why not, say, open your eyes and see if what he's complaining about has merit? I know that's something TNA have shown no willingness to do, ever, but such a radical idea might work. It's also ironic that you expect Starr to be professional when TNA, not only with this situation but in so many things, have shown themselves to be anything but professional. Other guys are complaining too. TNA should be less worried about showing "who the boss is", and worrying more about why they've got a miserable crew of wrestlers on the rosters.

I'm with TNA,they trying to have control over the company and avoid a WCW situation where guys had more freedom. What made Vince McMAHON more successful than other promoters is his strict persona "I'm the boss and you the employee". Explain how suspending Austin Starr, while refusing to accept where the problem really lies, does anything positive? It does nothing to solve their many problems, and only lowers morale even further.

It's grainy, but this is video of that kick: That kick

Wrestling Observer Newsletter, August 23d 2004 Ive never heard this before....But I have heard from many sources including the WWE that The This is your life segment was the highest rated segment in Raw history.....It's not the Taker/Austin isnt worth stating it as the highest rated...if it was im sure more people wouldve heard about it being such It's not like the Observer has never been wrong....I remember vividly the This is your LIfe segment...I dont' remember at all Taker/Austin..But that's just me.. It's not like WWE hasn't played loose with the numbers, either. The "This is Your..." deal was the highest rated non-match, but the Austin/Undertaker deal was both the highest rated match and the highest rated segment.

For singular events, like the 'This Is Your Life' deal, that is correct, but when the matches and angles of a specific person are consistently getting big numbers, it's pretty hard to deny the effect they have in bringing in the viewers.

I remember a six-man, with Austin and Vince on one side and Shane and Undertaker on the other, did a 9.11.

Re: The highest rated segment on Raw. Wrestling Observer Newsletter, August 23d 2004