Guest Goodear Report post Posted April 15, 2003 It seems as though every other thread or so, someone will bring up a wrestler and the subject of their drawing power or the ratings will come up for debate. The question I have to you all is do you really put that much stock in how much money a worker can generate or are you just trying to disqualify the worker in question from being a top tier player by whatever means you have at your disposal. For example, Triple H and Kurt Angle were the primary champions for their respective brands and drew similar numbers from what I can tell but only one of those two seem to get labeled as a poor money maker by the IRC. Doesn't this imply that ratings and drawing power aren't really what people here are interested in? And, if so, why do they continually come up for evidence for arguments? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jack Potts Report post Posted April 15, 2003 I care because I'm a stockholder in the WWE. It's in my economic interest to know who is making what for the company. I'm a fan, too, and I'm there to be entertained. Kurt Angle entertains me. He's magic in the ring, and a remarkably gifted and versatile performer behind the mic. Triple H ceased to be entertaining since the dying days of McMahon-Helmsley Era, which I initially found extremely amusing. I can forgive Angle for his drawing power (or lack thereof), because he entertains me, and seems interested in building the company and future wrestlers. Short term loss yields a long term gain. Triple H is not entertaining. He seems short-sighted and selfish. The opportunity cost of him remaining champion is that we do not see elevation of future Superstars. Short term gain for Triple H means a long term loss for the entire company and an economic and creative quagmire for the WWE that will take a long time to recover from. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mulatto Heat Report post Posted April 15, 2003 The only time in comes into play for me is when it's debunking myths about "who doesn't draw" and "who does". Case in point: every one of the major players on RAW. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kahran Ramsus Report post Posted April 15, 2003 As a fan I don't care that much, but it does in certain cases. For example, in the 80s I could put up with Hogan main eventing every show even though I hated him, because he drew money. I still didn't like him, but I understood it. These days I don't find HHH entertaining at all AND he is tanking ratings, yet he is still dominating every show. This is what really bugs me. Regardless, I would rather see someone I like than someone I don't, whether they draw or not. If Chris Benoit got 20 minute matches every week while holding the WWE Title and main eventing every PPV, it probably wouldn't be good for ratings, but I would be extremely happy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mole Report post Posted April 15, 2003 Ramsus said it best. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted April 16, 2003 I agree with the opinion that "drawing power" and "the wrestler of MY PICKINGS" have conflicted in the past, but I didn't mind because they were doing great business for WWE. Also like mentioned before, nowadays, a good portion of the stars that ME on RAW don't do either, yet are the main focus of the show. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JDMattitudeV1 Report post Posted April 16, 2003 I couldn't give a shit about who is a draw and who isn't as long as the product entertains me. At the moment the so called "draws" aren't drawing flies, and they are not entertaining me, therefore you have to question why on earth they are pushing them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RavishingRickRudo Report post Posted April 16, 2003 It depends on how much time the WWE is investing in the particular wrestler. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Luke Cage Report post Posted April 16, 2003 I don't care about the following. Wrestler X's "drawing" power TV ratings PPV buyrates Behind the scenes politics Merchandise sales I just want to see some wrestling. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bps "The Truth" 21 Report post Posted April 16, 2003 Here's why I care: The only and I mean ONLY excuse Vince has for putting the shittiest people on top time and time agin is IF they draw. When they don't...I feel the right to bitch that the wants of the fans are not only being ignored...but they the prduct also sucks. Product sucked when Hogan was on top...Austin too. But they drew. Now...not so much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted April 16, 2003 bps21 is correct. If I find Triple H boring, yet he is drawing like a madman, then I can't complain really because he is making the WWE a great deal of business. However, if said wrestler isn't drawing a fly, AND he isn't entertaining me, than I can complain easily pointing out that obviously my feelings aren't just my own. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest notJames Report post Posted April 16, 2003 When the top dog draws money, every wrestler benefits, so any drawbacks the top dog has can be overlooked. When the top dog is talented, or entertaining, or looks to build on the future of the company (which in essence means the future of the industry as a whole), any lack of drawing power can be overlooked to some degree, because future gains are almost assured. And more power to you, Jack Potts. I hope your investment turns into a successful one, despite the shittiness of the current product. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
