Guest Mulatto Heat Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 Cumulative, yes. Per segment, no. Eddy has had 4 more segments than Benoit. EDIT: 5 segments more, actually.
Guest Anglesault Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 Cumulative, yes. Per segment, no. Eddy has had 4 more segments than Benoit. OK. I forgot to check # of segments.
Guest TheGame2705 Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 I looked over my graph and it shows that apparently, hardly anyone backs The Mack.
Guest Anglesault Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 I looked over my graph and it shows that apparently, hardly anyone backs The Mack. Or Test. Test has no in ring talent, no charisma, no mic skills, no heat, and is ratings DEATH. Test is SO fucking Shane just to keep his job.
ISportsFan Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 Cumulative, yes. Per segment, no. Eddy has had 4 more segments than Benoit. OK. I forgot to check # of segments. The difference between Eddy and Benoit is about 1,000 people per segment. That's pretty statistically insignificant. The main point is (or at least the main point should be) that Benoit gets more viewers than people who were on the same level as Brock and Angle for some of this period, which includes Cena, Big Show, and Undertaker (who never loses). Same with Eddy. Same with Benjamin. Same with Haas (except Big Show). Jason
Guest Anglesault Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 I've got an idea. I shall e-mail the WWE with these cold, hard Test facts and demands ome kind of explanation for his push. WWE Responds: "He's got a great look"
Guest Mulatto Heat Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 Great look... pppffftt... These numbers show that it means nothing more often than not. Go read some of the rookies' bios at wwe.com sometime. It's all about "look look look". I'll even suggest three to read: Grenier, Conway and Cade. I'll even bet that Orton's says something similar even though I didn't read his last time I was at the bio page.
Guest Anglesault Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 . I'll even bet that Orton's says something similar even though I didn't read his last time I was at the bio page. He's quick, agile, technically sound, and as female fans will tell you, he has the looks to make an impact
Guest TheGame2705 Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 I'd do Randy Orton too but I thought he sucked in the ring until I saw him in the Degradation Chamber match at SummerSlam. Regardless he still has nothing above Mike Sanders "white bread" mic skills.
Guest Mulatto Heat Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 I wouldn't have much of a problem with this 'look' business if it actually translated to something relating to what goes on in the ring (i.e. Brock looks intimidating and is even stronger than he appears). But my beef is how some of these guys are going to be great because they look pretty, not because they're any good. Orton exemplifies this. Hell, in Grenier's wwe.com bio it says how his looks got him noticed by their officials. So they're good-looking, fine, but it's not exactly going to motivate me to buy a PPV. Anyway, this is way off-topic so I'll leave it at that.
jester Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 I've got an idea. I shall e-mail the WWE with these cold, hard Test facts and demands ome kind of explanation for his push. WWE Responds: "He's got a great look" Test has potential.
Jack_Bauer Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 I would have to say I have enjoyed some Test matches. Stick him in the ring with Scott Steiner and that has NO chance of showing.
CanadianChick Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 Why are some people acting like a low positive number is awful? They are still gaining viewers. I think the only thing this shows is that people without a push who are getting extremely high ratings should be pushed to the moon and pushed guys who are getting extremely low ratings shouldn't get pushed. If a non-pushed guy is getting a low positive number (like +50 000 or something like that) doesn't mean they shouldn't get pushed. They are still getting viewers.
Kahran Ramsus Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 Why push a guy who is more of a risk as opposed to someone like Benoit who is a proven winner? You can't push everybody, so if Christian is outdrawing RVD with the same push, you push Christian instead of RVD. It only makes sense.
CanadianChick Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 Oh, I know that. Of course you would push Chris Benoit over someone like RVD with those numbers. But if pushing someone with a lower positive number is not nessesarly a bad idea. They are still gaining viewers without a push as opposed to someone who is getting a push and gaining even less viewers. Although I still don't understand the Trish rating. Whenever Gail Kim was on, Trish was too. So how could one have such a bad number and the other a good one?
Guest Anglesault Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 I would have to say I have enjoyed some Test matches. Sure. He had a good match in 99, and again in 01. I know, my logic of "none of his matches hitting *** in over two and a half years means he sucks" is apparently flawed because he still has potential or something. Stick him in the ring with Scott Steiner and that has NO chance of showing. Stick him with anyone but Eddie or Shane (which was fun, if not fundamentally good) and you have a bad match. Angle AND Jericho both failed to get a good match out of him. I don't remember any Test/Benoit to compare it to.
SamoaRowe Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 I remember Angle vs Test being really good and Jericho vs Test getting standing ovations at house shows.
buffybeast Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 A-Train +350,000 +70,000 People can not longer justifiably request A-train to be removed from their televisions.
KTID Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 Apart from those (like me) who are offended by how bad his work is.
Guest Anglesault Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 I remember Angle vs Test being really good . That really bad one from around X Seven? and Jericho vs Test getting standing ovations at house shows I recall two lousy TV matches.
KTID Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 Let's not start this again. (in childish voice): HE STARTED IT!
Jobber of the Week Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 Kurt Angle +6,032,000 +402,130 Zach Gowen +7,269,000 +484,600 Ric Flair +5,078,000 +282,110 Mick Foley +2,870,000 +574,000 Bill Goldberg +6,833,000 +427,060 :(
Lil' Bitch Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 Test did some good matches with Val Venis. One at the house show I went to and that one on Heat a few weeks ago.
Guest TheArchiteck Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 Booker T isn't a draw?? Whats wrong with these viewers???!?!
Use Your Illusion Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 Triple H DRAWS MORE than Jericho Eat shit and die, Smarks. UYI - Real identity: Paul Levesque. Fuck off. I said SMARKS, not full-blown 12 year old marks No need to take offence UYI
Guest Ronixis Posted October 20, 2003 Report Posted October 20, 2003 This is intresting. RAW has a stable Main Event, and unstable lower card. Smackdown has a stable lower/Upper Midcard/Tag Teams. And not suprisingly, The McMahans lead the way in ratings. Well, G-Berg is a draw. Why can I say, they love Asian Chicks. And yes. She has not gone threw the Boob Job. They just need to retool RAW NOW. The Main Event is fine, but save the lower card.
Kahran Ramsus Posted October 20, 2003 Report Posted October 20, 2003 Goldberg is not a draw according to buyrates. What is required of Main Eventers and Midcarders are two different things? The current main eventers aren't draws, and haven't been since Wrestlemania X-8. Goldberg and the McMahon's aren't the collosal failures that Nash & Orton are, but they aren't doing much either. I'm not saying Benoit and company are either, but they might be. Push the guy who might succeed, rather than the guy who you know will fail. What these numbers do show, is who in the midcard are the guys you want to push (ex. Shelton Benjamin) and those who you don't (ex. Rodney Mack).
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now