So you think Shawn Michaels wasn't a draw?

[Guest Paranoid]

All this talk of buyrates doesn't relly mean that one person drew that number. There are more then just that one person on the card for that event. So isn't it unfair to compare buyrates to just a single performer?

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

You did the same regarding this week's RAW rating.

 

What's the difference?

[Guest Tony149]

I belive Royal Rumble '97 had 40,000 pay to see the event. The others were comps.

[Guest Paranoid]

You did the same regarding this week's RAW rating.

 

What's the difference?

Because I was just doing what everyone else was. Then logic kicked in and I realized that a buyrate really has noyhing to do with a single performer.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

All this talk of buyrates doesn't relly mean that one person drew that number. There are more then just that one person on the card for that event. So isn't it unfair to compare buyrates to just a single performer?

Actually, evidence suggests that they do. Most marks order based on the main event. Wrestlemania XIII is generally considered the best example, as it did the worst Wrestlemania buyrate ever, despite Hart/Austin, because Sid/Taker was the advertised main event. The exceptions are double main events, and say events like Wrestlemania XVIII or Survivor Series 1991, where the advertised main event was actually in the middle of the card.

 

Occasionally there are other factors at work (like Wrestlemania X being the tenth anniversary of Wrestlemania), but for the most part the fans pay to see

a) The Champion

b) The Challenger

 

When Diesel vs. Mable outdraws Michaels vs. Vader, then the blame falls directly onto Vader & Michaels. Vader was de-pushed almost immediately, while Michaels is still World Champion. Michaels didn't draw a SINGLE good buyrate (Wrestlemania XI & XII were pretty bad by Wrestlemania standards) until Wrestlemania XIV, with Wrestlemania XII being against a guy who was drawing good buy-rates both in 1994 as champion and in 1996. Wrestlemania XII barely outdrew Diesel vs. Bret in February. Bret isn't at Hogan's level, but he has proven that he was a capable draw. The blame has to go to Michaels, especially considering he was getting the push from hell up until his title win (big return from injury angle, music videos, winning Royal Rumble, (this is starting to sound familiar)). The ratings sunk when Michaels was champ, and bottomed out in December with Sid as champ. They started going up slightly after Michaels forfeited the title in February 1997.

[Guest FeArHaVoC]

I could swear Business went up a little after Shawn won the title at WM12? But, then dropped again until Bret Came back for Survivor Series.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

Show something that can prove it, then.

 

What's for sure is that the introduction of the nWo fucked Shawn over as a draw, which is ironic considering that his buddies were the ones involved.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Show something that can prove it, then.

 

What's for sure is that the introduction of the nWo fucked Shawn over as a draw, which is ironic considering that his buddies were the ones involved.

Not really. The NWO didn't reach its peak ratings-wise, until 1997. Starrcade 1997 was the peak point of the NWO in terms of drawing. In the summer of 1996, WCW was still drawing pretty shitty buyrates themselves.

[Guest converge241]

Shawn is responsible for an increase in house show attendence in 96

 

if anybody went to house shows post Hogan you know what i mean

[cawthon777]

60,000 people at the event with only a gross of $480,013?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if 40,000 only paid.

Probably even less. It was low enough for Eric Bischoff to publically make fun of the paying attendance during an episode of Nitro around the same time. He said something to the effect of "We didn't hand out these tickets at 7-11" with Hall and Nash laughing their asses off in the background.

[Guest bob_barron]

All this talk of buyrates doesn't relly mean that one person drew that number.  There are more then just that one person on the card for that event.  So isn't it unfair to compare buyrates to just a single performer?

Actually, evidence suggests that they do. Most marks order based on the main event. Wrestlemania XIII is generally considered the best example, as it did the worst Wrestlemania buyrate ever, despite Hart/Austin, because Sid/Taker was the advertised main event. The exceptions are double main events, and say events like Wrestlemania XVIII or Survivor Series 1991, where the advertised main event was actually in the middle of the card.

 

Occasionally there are other factors at work (like Wrestlemania X being the tenth anniversary of Wrestlemania), but for the most part the fans pay to see

a) The Champion

b) The Challenger

 

When Diesel vs. Mable outdraws Michaels vs. Vader, then the blame falls directly onto Vader & Michaels. Vader was de-pushed almost immediately, while Michaels is still World Champion. Michaels didn't draw a SINGLE good buyrate (Wrestlemania XI & XII were pretty bad by Wrestlemania standards) until Wrestlemania XIV, with Wrestlemania XII being against a guy who was drawing good buy-rates both in 1994 as champion and in 1996. Wrestlemania XII barely outdrew Diesel vs. Bret in February. Bret isn't at Hogan's level, but he has proven that he was a capable draw. The blame has to go to Michaels, especially considering he was getting the push from hell up until his title win (big return from injury angle, music videos, winning Royal Rumble, (this is starting to sound familiar)). The ratings sunk when Michaels was champ, and bottomed out in December with Sid as champ. They started going up slightly after Michaels forfeited the title in February 1997.

Couldn't the ladder match have helped buyrates?

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Couldn't the ladder match have helped buyrates?

 

I doubt it. There was no backstory there between Michaels & Razor at all. They simply put the match together at the last minute because the show was sucking so much.

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

WWE.com reports that Survivor Series drew 17,930 fans for a gate of $1,250,580. That breaks WWE's old MSG gate record of $1.1 million set at the 2000 Royal Rumble.

 

Bull fucking shit.

[Guest HartFan86]

WWE.com reports that Survivor Series drew 17,930 fans for a gate of $1,250,580. That breaks WWE's old MSG gate record of $1.1 million set at the 2000 Royal Rumble.

 

Bull fucking shit.

I believe it.

 

Ticket prices are higher than ever.

[Guest Tim Cooke]

Take a look at house show attedance and PPV Buyrates and get back to me about Michaels being a draw.

 

Tim

[Guest RickyChosyu]

Yes. While Michaels did stimulate some House Show attendence improvements in the post-Hogan era, we're discussing his '96 run as champion, which saw House Show attendence and Pay Per View buy rates drop significantly.

 

Calling someone a "Michaels hater" because they state the facts is ridiculous. It's not about hating Michaels, it's about calling things as they are.

[LaParkaYourCar]

Nevermind.

[Guest pochorenella]

I still maintain that you can't put all the blame for poor buyrates and poor house shows attendance on Shawn Michaels. I mean, look at all the other performers of that time: IC Champs? Goldust, Ahmed Johnson, Marc Mero, Hunter (in his early stages). All those guys did was draw flies. And what about the Tag ranks? Bodydonnas, the Pig brothers, the Smoking Gunns? Really some of the all-time greats, aren't they? And there are some other guys I can't even recall. The WWF was at their peak with guys on awful gimmicks.

 

If anything, what Michaels did was save those shows with terrific matches and actually putting butts in seats when there wasn't any undercarders to back him up.

 

But of course, all the HBK-haters will just look at the cold numbers and go: "no, no, no, the Kliq sucks, Michaels sucks, everything he does sucks, yada, yada, yada".

[Guest Brian]

Of course, and you can't pin the resuscitation of the WWF solely on Austin. But they were vocal points and had strong rolls in carrying the company as champs, and competing in main storylines.

[Guest The Mighty Damaramu]

I love that excuse. When someone presents facts and the person can't retort with a valid argument they say "Oh you're just a hater that can't see the truth! You're blinded by your hate!

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

Classic case of someone lashing out after being backed up against the wall.

 

Saving a show does not = great draw, which was the point of this entire thread was it not?

 

And mediocre business is due to the undercard, yet great business is due to the main event (in particular Michaels)? Revisionist history at its finest (or worst, depending on the way you look at it).

 

No one said Michaels or anything he did sucked. And what's this about the Kliq? No one mentioned the other 'members'.

[Guest pochorenella]

I love that excuse. When someone presents facts and the person can't retort with a valid argument they say "Oh you're just a hater that can't see the truth! You're blinded by your hate!

 

Where did you get the idea that I was making an excuse? What I've been doing all along is presenting fact after fact, and trying to rationalize the circumstances instead of just looking and the cold numbers and taking them as gospel.

 

Of course, being that Michaels was the top billed performer does not exent him of his responsibility to be the main draw on a given event, but I doubt most people would just want to watch only one guy in a single fight and then go home. They have to give the public a good or at least passable card from top to bottom, not just depend on the main guy and make the other matches total crap.

 

WM XIV was a terrific card from top to bottom, with many storylines paying off in a great way, and on top of that Michaels vs. Austin for Stone Cold's long awaited Title win. THAT'S what made WM XIV the success it was, not only the fact that Austin was about to be champion. Not to give Austin his just due would be a mistake, but to say that he was the only attraction for the show would be another mistake.

[Guest AlwaysPissedOff]

Actually, if Survivor Series 97 had never happened and Bret had stayed, Austin/Hart would have done eons better than HBK/Austin(which had no backstory other than that quickie tag title reign)

[Guest pochorenella]

Actually, if Survivor Series 97 had never happened and Bret had stayed, Austin/Hart would have done eons better than HBK/Austin(which had no backstory other than that quickie tag title reign)

 

That I agree on, because it would've been a big payoff for a long-term and well-planned storyline, not just some quickie-thing like they're doing lately. Still, it did a monster buyrate, so anything would be just speculating. If Bret hadn't left who can actually say that the ratings would have developed as they did? A big factor here (or the main one if you like) was the Austin/Vince feud, so who knows if it would've happened if Bret had stayed?

[Guest Paranoid]

Sorry, but logic and definition dictate that a buyrate is a tool to show how an entire show does. Now I understand that people come for the main event, but if the under card sucks then they won't waste their time watching an entire shitty show for that one main event. Case in point, Doink. So, call me stubborn, but I refuse to believe that just because the buyrate sucked does not mean that it was because of the main eventers.

[Guest RickyChosyu]

There have been plenty of shows with terrible undercards that still popped great buy rates for the main event. People come for the main event, and the main stars are the ones with the responsibility of draw. To argue otherwise is to argue against a fundimental aspect of the wrestling business. In short, it's a flat arguement, and trying to use it to justify Michaels as a draw is ridiculous.

 

If anything, what Michaels did was save those shows with terrific matches and actually putting butts in seats when there wasn't any undercarders to back him up.

 

Oh, so now Michaels "saved" the company even though business plumeted once they put the title on him. Did you think when you typed that, or did it just sort of come out? Michaels 1996 may be the overrated year of wrestling for any worker, but that's besides the point. The point is, fact is fact, and you're trying to argue against it. Never a good idea.

 

But of course, all the HBK-haters will just look at the cold numbers and go: "no, no, no, the Kliq sucks, Michaels sucks, everything he does sucks, yada, yada, yada".

 

So you're attributing the fall in business to the Godwins, and WE'RE biased? Silly me, I'm just an HBK-hater. What was I thinking, posting attendence figuers, and you know, PROOF, like that?

 

WM XIV was a terrific card from top to bottom, with many storylines paying off in a great way, and on top of that Michaels vs. Austin for Stone Cold's long awaited Title win. THAT'S what made WM XIV the success it was, not only the fact that Austin was about to be champion. Not to give Austin his just due would be a mistake, but to say that he was the only attraction for the show would be another mistake.

 

He wasn't the only attraction. There was Mike Tyson, too.

 

Shawn had been gone since RR. Everyone knew he was dropping the title to Austin. It was as clear as day. It was a draw because there was no doubt in what the outcome would be, not because people had a genuine interest in seeing Shawn defend his title. The rise in WWF business directly coincides with Shawn's departure, and Austin's title win.

 

The proof is there. Argue against fact all you want.

[Guest Sassquatch]

Dave Meltzer said that a couple years ago that the Royal Rumble of '97 sold around 33,000 tickets more or less.

 

Nearly half the crowd that showed up to the show were comped.

 

Shawn did not draw when he was placed on top because Vince had put the title on him 1 year too late when the fans would have actually paid to see him as the champ.

[Guest Paranoid]

For every example you give to prove your point, I can also give one to prove mine. Look at Brock/Rock. It only drew a 1.0.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

Out of curiosity, where did you find out about Summerslam's buyrate?

[Guest Paranoid]

Out of curiosity, where did you find out about Summerslam's buyrate?

I searched Yahoo for wwe buyrates.