Raw Rating a 4.4 !!!!!!

[Kurt Angle Mark]

WWE got some of the best news that they have received in a long time this week as the Raw rating spiked almost a full point from last week's show. This week's edition of Raw did a 4.4 cable rating, with a 6.7 share. The show did hours of 4.3 and 4.5. The rating rose of 0.9 of a point from last week's number, which was a 3.5. It was the highest rating that Raw has gotten in over two months.

 

The show peaked with a 4.9 rating for the 10 p.m. quarter hour, which contained the Goldberg vs. Christian match and the Ric Flair vs. Hurricane encounter. The second highest quarter was the 4.7 that the show did from 9:45 to 10 p.m. The numbers then went down for the rest of the show, with 10:15 doing a 4.5, followed by a 4.3, a 4.2 and a 4.4 for the overrun, which was the Kevin Nash-Chris Jericho match. There are a lot of things that you can probably surmise from the numbers, such as there being a lot of interest in Goldberg's match up. It was also interesting to note that a number of fans left after that match aired.

 

credit: 1wrestling.com

[Guest oldschoolwrestling]

Poor Jericho.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

(hits face into wall repeatedly)

 

I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT!!!!

[Guest bob_barron]

Goldust returning=ratings

[Zetterberg is God]

Looks like Goldberg is starting to become a draw. So it makes plently of sense not to have him booked in a match for Judgment Day.

[Guest The Grand Pubah of 1620]

I only have four words to say about this.

 

I TOLD YOU SO!!!!

 

And Goldust had nothing to do with it. His match was the second worse match of the night.

[Guest BobbyWhioux]

It's Christian.

 

People want to see Christian in the ring.

 

That's all there is to it.

 

Yes, I'd like to give Hurricane some of the credit for that mid-show ratings spike too, but, honestly, that was an impromptu match; people didn't know it was happening beforehand, and hence they couldn't have known to tune into it. Although it is encouraging to note that so many viewers STAYED tuned in for that segment. So there's something to be said in his favor.

 

Hurricane keeps the viewers there. But Christian is clearly the draw. Jericho's entertaining and all, but he just can't bring 'em in like Christian can.

 

I propose they move to set up a main event feud between Christian and Hurricane IMMEDIATELY.

[Guest HartFan86]

So pretty much the fans wanted to see the cage match.

 

Funny thing? Neither of them are on the PPV.

[Guest bob_barron]

Looks like Goldberg is starting to become a draw. So it makes plently of sense not to have him booked in a match for Judgment Day.

Not yet. Backlash did a buyrate that WWE found dissapointing and this was for his first big match with The Rock.

 

And what did you tell us Johnson- just wondering?

[Guest The Grand Pubah of 1620]

Looks like Goldberg is starting to become a draw. So it makes plently of sense not to have him booked in a match for Judgment Day.

Not yet. Backlash did a buyrate that WWE found dissapointing and this was for his first big match with The Rock.

 

And what did you tell us Johnson- just wondering?

That this RAW kicked ass whether you and your anti-RAW buddies want to admit it or not.

[Mecha Mummy]

Christian/Hurricane feud = Happy Gosunkugi just because of the promos that would result.

 

But still... how the fuck did THAT happen? The first hour of Raw, from what I saw, was decent enough but the episode was nothing special.

[Guest FeArHaVoC]

Who was on during the 9:45-10:00 time?

[Guest bob_barron]

Looks like Goldberg is starting to become a draw. So it makes plently of sense not to have him booked in a match for Judgment Day.

Not yet. Backlash did a buyrate that WWE found dissapointing and this was for his first big match with The Rock.

 

And what did you tell us Johnson- just wondering?

That this RAW kicked ass whether you and your anti-RAW buddies want to admit it or not.

How do good ratings=good RAW?

 

Oh and I never said RAW sucked either. In my RAW Recap I said it was a decent show. So how am I an anti-RAW buddy??

 

But good ratings does not mean the content of the show was good. It just means people watched it.

[Guest The Grand Pubah of 1620]

Looks like Goldberg is starting to become a draw. So it makes plently of sense not to have him booked in a match for Judgment Day.

Not yet. Backlash did a buyrate that WWE found dissapointing and this was for his first big match with The Rock.

 

And what did you tell us Johnson- just wondering?

That this RAW kicked ass whether you and your anti-RAW buddies want to admit it or not.

How do good ratings=good RAW?

That's got to be the stupidest thing I've heard you say since yesterday bob.

 

If you need to ask how Good Rating=A Good RAW, then you should just leave now.

 

But if it was a shitty show, like it has been lately the rating would suck. People don't watch shitty show as much as good shows. That's just common sense.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

So pretty much the fans wanted to see the cage match.

 

Funny thing? Neither of them are on the PPV.

Christian's in the IC Title Battle Royal.

 

The way I see it, Christian wins the title, and then loses it to Goldberg at Bad Blood, to set up a Champion vs Champion match at Summerslam between Goldberg and HHH, similar to when Goldberg won the US title and then beat Hogan for the Belt. Then they can have another tourney for the IC belt afterwards or something..

[Mecha Mummy]

Naaah. I actually could see Christian winning the IC Battle Royale and then fueding with Hurricane from Bad Blood to Summerslam over it. If the matches... y'know, don't suck, it could launch both of their careers. Goldberg doesn't need the IC Title.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

Oh, and for the record, RAW was a pretty decent show, which means that if more people watched it, more people might be inclined to rent the PPV (er..maybe not) or at least watch RAW next week. This is what the WWE needed, and at least I hope that they see this as an oppertunity to put on another decent RAW to keep the fans coming back. Its a nice first step, whether or not the negative people around here want to see that as a positive or crap all over it for some reason...

[Guest bob_barron]

Looks like Goldberg is starting to become a draw. So it makes plently of sense not to have him booked in a match for Judgment Day.

Not yet. Backlash did a buyrate that WWE found dissapointing and this was for his first big match with The Rock.

 

And what did you tell us Johnson- just wondering?

That this RAW kicked ass whether you and your anti-RAW buddies want to admit it or not.

How do good ratings=good RAW?

That's got to be the stupidest thing I've heard you say since yesterday bob.

 

If you need to ask how Good Rating=A Good RAW, then you should just leave now.

 

But if it was a shitty show, like it has been lately the rating would suck. People don't watch shitty show as much as good shows. That's just common sense.

Not really-

 

The August 5th RAW drew an unsually high rating for RAW. That RAW was universally regarded as sucking big time.

 

So a good RAW does not always=equal good ratings.

 

A lot of the Russo era 1999 RAWs with all the Corporate Ministry crap drew a good rating. But it does not mean creatively that it was a good RAW. It just appealed to a general mass of people. That doesn't always make something good

[Guest Si82]

Looks like Goldberg is starting to become a draw. So it makes plently of sense not to have him booked in a match for Judgment Day.

Not yet. Backlash did a buyrate that WWE found dissapointing and this was for his first big match with The Rock.

 

And what did you tell us Johnson- just wondering?

That this RAW kicked ass whether you and your anti-RAW buddies want to admit it or not.

How do good ratings=good RAW?

That's got to be the stupidest thing I've heard you say since yesterday bob.

 

If you need to ask how Good Rating=A Good RAW, then you should just leave now.

 

But if it was a shitty show, like it has been lately the rating would suck. People don't watch shitty show as much as good shows. That's just common sense.

I'm with Bob on this.

 

Just cause Raw got a good rating doesn't mean it was a good show.

 

I point to the "This Is Your Life" segment on Raw back in '99.

 

That got high ratings but I personally thought it was mind numbing rubbish.

 

Mind you, it's all about personal opinion I suppose.

[Guest FeArHaVoC]

Any chance 1Wrestling screwed up and posted the Canadian rating?

[The Dames]

Yes, Bob is right.

 

Wrestling fans don't exactly tune in or out all of the time, they do it in patterns. In '98-99, some Raws were downright shitty, but because the fanbase was there, the ratings were high. Lately, the fanbase has left due to a lack of interest in the product because overall, there's nothing to keep them there. Obviously, due to those numbers, Goldberg & Christian's cage match attracted fans to watch the product, but then they LEFT. That doesn't mean it was a good Raw. It just means people wanted to see the cage match.

 

Dames

[Guest The Grand Pubah of 1620]

"This is your life" was one of the best RAW shows ever. I really don't understand some of you guys logic sometimes.

 

Oh, and Austin is the reason for the good ratings.

[Mecha Mummy]

I thought "This Is Your Life" was cute, but not spectacular... but when I was a mark I hated face Rock with a passion, so...

[The Dames]

Johnson, look at the quarter hours. The highest rated quarter hour didn't feature Austin at all.

 

I enjoyed the This is Your Life segment, yes. And it IS the highest rating Raw segment ever. HOWEVER, back then, they could have put on absolute SHIT and people would have watched it because tons of people were into wrestling then. High ratings ONLY mean high interest.

 

Dames

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

Yes it did. Austin was involved in the Hurricane vs Flair ordeal. Not that it mattered much, but he was involved.

[Guest The Grand Pubah of 1620]

I guess I just can't grasp the "smark" way of thinking. You know, twisting facts around to make something out of nothing.

 

RAW was a great show, great shows get great ratings. Bad shows get bad ratings. Fan base and other things, IMO, doesn't matter. If the show is good people will watch and the ratings will be good. If the show sucks people won't watch it and it will get bad ratings. That's my take on this and I am done. Thanks to eveyone who had input.

[The Dames]

My bad...I completely disregarded the fact that Flair/Hurricane (the best match of the night, IMO) was in that same quarter hour.

 

Dames

[Guest bob_barron]

I guess I just can't grasp the "smark" way of thinking. You know, twisting facts around to make something out of nothing.

 

RAW was a great show, great shows get great ratings. Bad shows get bad ratings. Fan base and other things, IMO, doesn't matter. If the show is good people will watch and the ratings will be good. If the show sucks people won't watch it and it will get bad ratings. That's my take on this and I am done. Thanks to eveyone who had input.

Nope- you're wrong.

 

As Dames said- The fanbase was so big from 98-2000 they could've put on a shitty show and still have gotten a great rating for it.

 

So a great/good rating does not=good RAW.

[Guest Blue Bacchus]

But it was a Good RAW and it deserved the Ratings that it got. Hopefully it's a step in the right direction.

 

Goldberg = Ratings

[Guest The Grand Pubah of 1620]

I guess I just can't grasp the "smark" way of thinking.  You know, twisting facts around to make something out of nothing. 

 

RAW was a great show, great shows get great ratings.  Bad shows get bad ratings.  Fan base and other things, IMO, doesn't matter.  If the show is good people will watch and the ratings will be good.  If the show sucks people won't watch it and it will get bad ratings.  That's my take on this and I am done.  Thanks to eveyone who had input.

Nope- you're wrong.

 

As Dames said- The fanbase was so big from 98-2000 they could've put on a shitty show and still have gotten a great rating for it.

 

So a great/good rating does not=good RAW.

That doesn't mean I am wrong. All it means is that we don't agree. Fanbase doesn't mean shit in the case of ratings. Fanbase or not, if the show sucks people aren't going to watch. They were getting shitty ratings back then to. Just agree to disagree and let that be that.