Guest LatinoHeat Report post Posted April 12, 2003 I'm talking about the height of the popularity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bob_barron Report post Posted April 12, 2003 1987. There were points in 1998 where business wasn't that great. OTE did a pretty bad buyrate Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kahran Ramsus Report post Posted April 12, 2003 2000 was the biggest year ever business-wise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest humongous2002 Report post Posted April 12, 2003 Neither, it was 2000.But anyway between those 2 i would pick 98, because the Austin era started. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest converge241 Report post Posted April 12, 2003 2001 for the first 3 months or so would have been on pace to top 2000 and set a new plateau but we all know that derailed after X7 had a hopespot in July then fell apart again Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest snuffbox Report post Posted April 12, 2003 1987 trumps 98 on the weight of Wrestlemania III alone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JN News 0 Report post Posted April 12, 2003 2000 was a good year, business-wise. But, it also was the year that the downward spiral known as the McMahon/Helmsley Era began. They shoved HHH & Steph down our throats from that point on, and it all went downhill from there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Aero Report post Posted April 12, 2003 2000 was a good year, business-wise. But, it also was the year that the downward spiral known as the McMahon/Helmsley Era began. They shoved HHH & Steph down our throats from that point on, and it all went downhill from there. I don't think it was necessarily shoved down are throats until MAYBE September-October. That was when Steph should've turned on HHH for Angle, or at least some big payoff. Still, all year and through to 2001, HHH showed exactly why he was main eventing with all of his great matches, so I didn't mind. My only complaint of 2000 was the McMahon-Helmsley Faction/Regime in June. By KOTR, it was getting a little repetitive. The only thing during that part of the story to my interest was the returning Undertaker. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted April 12, 2003 2000 was clearly the best year of WWF. Business Wise and Product wise. It should noted that WWF's two biggest draws WEREN'T ACTIVE for that season (for the most part, Austin/Hogan). Just about every PPV save for Mania and KOTR were Great, WWF got influx of Talent from WCW in the Radicalz. Jericho, Angle, Benoit all emerged as prime players... Tag Team Wrestling was at it's highest peak since the 87-92 era. The I.C was once again credible for the first time since the early 90's with Jericho, Angle, Benoit, Eddy all going over that title. HHH was having A 1989 Flair Year, Regardless of your beliefs on who was the real reason for that streak. Politics were raging in on Holy Wars...No Old Timers ANYWHERE...Vince was the mere example. A WWF superstar reached #1 on the NYTimes Best sellers list...WWE superstars were all over Network TV. How to Answer the Question asked... 1987 or 1998? It's intersting to note that those years had TWO momentous WM Main events (Hogan/Andre and Austin/HBK With Tyson)... However, the product weren't as strong as it should have been...In 1987...The I.C title was becoming a important part of WWF...In 1998, It meant nothing but a Prop. Business Wise, They likely did about even, but 1998 had many advantages over 1987. However, 1987 and 1998 stand no where close to 2000. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest edotherocket Report post Posted April 13, 2003 For whatever reason I find people can name more midcarders from 1987 than 1998. People like Jake the Snake, The British Bulldog and Koko B. Ware. Must be something about animal mascots that connect with people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted April 13, 2003 Likely it's Nostalgia...and those Mid-carders kinda stood out because they never went no where... and they were characters...Not "Human beings" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest AM The Kid Report post Posted April 13, 2003 Likely it's Nostalgia...and those Mid-carders kinda stood out because they never went no where... and they were characters...Not "Human beings" You put up a good point there. My question is, should the WWE go back to using characters or stick with the realism? Which do you guys think would sell better? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted April 13, 2003 If you look at TV today, It's all Realism...So if WWE wants to stand out it might benifit to return to a Character driven aspect... While I personally believe The "Realism" is easier to buy into...People like to view wrestlers as Characters and Gimmicks and a fun way to kill 2 hours... I say a Meddling line in between would work best...In 1998 it was great you still had the cartoony characters like Kane, Taker and Others but you had your stark realism of Austin and McMahon... 2000 was all realism as 1987 was all cartoon gimmicks... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kahran Ramsus Report post Posted April 13, 2003 I can't back it up, but I seem to remember hearing that 1989 was actually the most profitable year of the Golden Age, not 1987 which gets the attention because of the Silverdome. I also seem to remember that Wrestlemania V was the most watch wrestling PPV of all time until 1999 (either Royal Rumble or Wrestlemania XV, I 'm not sure which one was the first to break it). Can anyone comment on this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Trivia247 Report post Posted April 13, 2003 keep in mind also the WWF at 1987 had more exposure on the regular channels they had three Major shows, Prime Time Saturday Night, and All American they really didn't go through the recap stuff too much, and All American Wrestling was just recap of almost house shows. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mole Report post Posted April 13, 2003 Yes, 2000 was the best year for wrestling. 87 was more popular than 98 was. Remember when Hogan was pulling 11's on SNME? SCSA, Rock, Mankind etc never pulled an 11, ever. I'm going with 87. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Austin3164life Report post Posted April 13, 2003 Hogan drew 10s, but they were few and far between, it wasn't on a consistent basis. Hogan did headling some of the most profitable pay-per-views ever though. Austin throughout 98 and into 99 drew 4s then 5s then 6s week in and week out (in 99, the average rating for Raw with Austin headlining was a 6.1). However the ppv buyrates weren't so hot. I know that besides WM 3, 'Mania 17 has the biggest buyrate, with over 1.7 million people buying (I believe). 2000 was a very profitable year for WWE. And it was probably their best year in terms of workrate and match quality. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Hogan Made Wrestling Report post Posted April 13, 2003 1998 can't even hold 2000's jockstrap. WWE generated something like 3 times as much revenue in 2000. Despite all the crap people give 2001 because of the Invasion and so on, it was actually one of the best revenue generating years ever for WWE, breaking the 400 million mark (2000 was something like 450 million). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kahran Ramsus Report post Posted April 13, 2003 I know that besides WM 3, 'Mania 17 has the biggest buyrate, with over 1.7 million people buying (I believe). Buyrates have changed alot over the years. Wrestlemania III has by far the highest buyrate for any wrestling PPV, but the available PPV universe was much smaller. Wrestlemania X-7 is the most watched wrestling PPV of all time. Wrestlemania's XV and 2000 had more people watching as well. Until 1999, the record was held by Wrestlemania V which is quite impressive considering the times. A buyrate in 1989 does not equal a buyrate in 2003. Wrestlemania III - 8.0 Wrestlemania IV - 6.5 Wrestlemania V - 5.9 Wrestlemania VI - 4.5 Wrestlemania VII - 2.8 Wrestlemania VIII - 2.3 (Anything after this can be pretty well compared with modern buyrates) Wrestlemania IX - 2.0 Wrestlemania X - 1.68 Wrestlemania XI - 1.3 Wrestlemania XII - 1.2 Wrestlemania XIII - 0.77 Wrestlemania XIV - 2.3 Wrestlemania XV - 2.32 Wrestlemania XVI - 2.08 Wrestlemania XVII - 2.4 Wrestlemania XVIII - 1.6 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest HartFan86 Report post Posted April 13, 2003 Wasn't Mania III like 20 bucks? That probably explains why more people bought it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CoreyLazarus416 Report post Posted April 13, 2003 And it was also towards the beginning of wrestling's 80's boom, and buyrates back then were much different than they are today. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest EN090 Report post Posted April 13, 2003 87 was more popular than 98 was. Remember when Hogan was pulling 11's on SNME? SCSA, Rock, Mankind etc never pulled an 11, ever. I'm going with 87. You gotta remember, though, that in 87 there were far fewer choices on TV then in 1998. WWF didn't have that much competition so more people watched. And they didn't have Nitro to deal with. As far as the 2000/1998 debate. Storyline-wise, I'd definitly go with 1998/1999. Myself and a lot of my friends were completely hooked on it. And the highest rating for Raw was around an 8.10-8.13 and it occured on 05/10/99 (rajahwwf.com, www.otherarena.com). It was also right in the middle of the Ministry storyline that so many "experts" bashed. Business-wise the buyrates were probably better in 2000 but not for all PPV's. I still maintain that they were riding a wave simply because the product was boring the hell out of me and a lot of people that I watched wrestling with. The McMahon/Helmsly stuff was being shoved down out throats. They were trying to remake the Austin/McMahon feud with Rock/Austin and Triple H being McMahon's henchman. I did like Edge/Christian, Benoit, Jericho, Angle, and Triple H back then. I heard that the original main event for Summerslam 00 was supposed to be Benoit/Rock in a ladder match. They really should have went with that and gave the belt to Benoit that night. With Shane as his mouthpiece, it could have worked. It really started going downhill for me when they screwed up Austin's return storyline. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Hamburglar Report post Posted April 13, 2003 2000 wanked over all. Triple H's god push worked back then because he was playing his best role, a truly nasty heel whose only job was to build heat for the chasing babyface and get the fans to hate him. The mid-card meant something. I honestly don't understand anyone who would take 1999 or 1998 over 2000. I just don't see where either of those two years could be superior. 2001 gets shit on unfairly, because it had much better matches than 1999, 1998 or possibly even 1997. The first three months of 2001 I'd take over any of the supposedly successful Attitude years. Even after X-7, I don't see why anyone would want to overlook Austin, Benoit, Jericho, Angle and Rock's greatness. Especially Austin's brilliance both in and out of the ring, which was just one of the best sustained runs I've seen. Hell, 2001 was the year where RVD looked like he was about to become a bona fide charismatic star with actual wrestling skills. Hey, fuck the shite Invasion, on a purely objective basis 2001 had a lot to recommend it. Apart from the Dark Period with Taker and Kane as top babyfaces. Speak of it not... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
