Guest thetrendsetter Posted January 16, 2004 Report Posted January 16, 2004 HHH isn't a draw. The HHH vs. Kane vs. Goldberg triple threat match drew 215,000 buys (0.40). As things currently stand, this is the second lowest drawing PPV of all time behind IYH: It's Time headlined by Bret vs. Sid (0.35). credit: wrestling observer The early buyrate for WWE Armageddon (headlined by Kane vs. Triple H vs. Goldberg) appears to be 215,000 buys (.40 buyrate). If that number holds, it would be the lowest buyrate for a WWE PPV since the December 1996 In Your House PPV which was headlined by Bret Hart vs. Sycho Sid. Armageddon last year did 340,000 buys. Credit: Wrestling Observer Newsletter Kind of funny how people can leave out certain statistics to make things look worse than they actually are. It wasn't the worst PPV ever, just the worst since 97, it's still bad, but nowhere's near as bad as that first post made it out to be. Wouldn't at least as much blame for this show fall on Kane or Goldberg? Goldberg was champion going in, Kane was the favored one to win the strap off him.
RavishingRickRudo Posted January 16, 2004 Report Posted January 16, 2004 1996 was one of the worst periods in WWE history.
Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes Posted January 16, 2004 Report Posted January 16, 2004 I hate to say it, but WWF was a lot better (buyrate and overall PPV wise) when Russo was writing. At least he gave a fuck about the undercard, and didn't just say... "Ok um....whatever your name is. Go out and fight Mark Henry for 5 minutes" "My names Booker T sucka!" "Ya Ya whatever. I gotta worry about Triple H! go eat some chicken"* *Not being racist, just saying thats not how Russo would be. He'd make fun of hillbilly pig fuckers.
humongous2002 Posted January 16, 2004 Report Posted January 16, 2004 HHH hasn't been a draw since 2000, Goldberg hasn't been a draw since 1998 and Kane got killed by Shane.The fans are dying to see somebody new and by new i mean the hungry upper midcard veterans, not the green unover OVW rookies.
dubq Posted January 16, 2004 Report Posted January 16, 2004 HHH isn't a draw. The HHH vs. Kane vs. Goldberg triple threat match drew 215,000 buys (0.40). As things currently stand, this is the second lowest drawing PPV of all time behind IYH: It's Time headlined by Bret vs. Sid (0.35). credit: wrestling observer Last I checked, a whole PPV gets a buyrate. I've never seen buyrates for single matches...
humongous2002 Posted January 16, 2004 Report Posted January 16, 2004 HHH isn't a draw. The HHH vs. Kane vs. Goldberg triple threat match drew 215,000 buys (0.40). As things currently stand, this is the second lowest drawing PPV of all time behind IYH: It's Time headlined by Bret vs. Sid (0.35). credit: wrestling observer Last I checked, a whole PPV gets a buyrate. I've never seen buyrates for single matches... People pay to see the main event, not the undercard.Whoever is main eventing should get the blame.
dubq Posted January 16, 2004 Report Posted January 16, 2004 HHH isn't a draw. The HHH vs. Kane vs. Goldberg triple threat match drew 215,000 buys (0.40). As things currently stand, this is the second lowest drawing PPV of all time behind IYH: It's Time headlined by Bret vs. Sid (0.35). credit: wrestling observer Last I checked, a whole PPV gets a buyrate. I've never seen buyrates for single matches... People pay to see the main event, not the undercard.Whoever is main eventing should get the blame. I don't know about you dude, but I don't buy a PPV just for the main event. If the rest of the card looks like shit, I wouldn't bother ordering it at all. ...and why does HHH get the blame for the main event supposedly garnering this horrible buyrate? There were two other guys in that match. Oh, wait. Why am I asking this, I forgot where I was for a second...
humongous2002 Posted January 16, 2004 Report Posted January 16, 2004 HHH hasn't been a draw since 2000, Goldberg hasn't been a draw since 1998 and Kane got killed by Shane.The fans are dying to see somebody new and by new i mean the hungry upper midcard veterans, not the green unover OVW rookies. As you can see i've already did that.
Scroby Posted January 17, 2004 Report Posted January 17, 2004 You can't really just point fingers at the main event...through it suppose to be the most antipated match on the card, the card itself was pretty weak looking and most likely turned a lot of people off. Back on to HHH, I find it funny how he tells everyone they gotta sell their matches and storylines and miss two weeks before the match and win the title...great leadership there huh?
AndrewTS Posted January 17, 2004 Report Posted January 17, 2004 *Not being racist, just saying thats not how Russo would be. He'd make fun of hillbilly pig fuckers. And Mexicans, and the Japanese...
Guest Anglesault Posted January 17, 2004 Report Posted January 17, 2004 HHH isn't a draw. The HHH vs. Kane vs. Goldberg triple threat match drew 215,000 buys (0.40). As things currently stand, this is the second lowest drawing PPV of all time behind IYH: It's Time headlined by Bret vs. Sid (0.35). credit: wrestling observer The early buyrate for WWE Armageddon (headlined by Kane vs. Triple H vs. Goldberg) appears to be 215,000 buys (.40 buyrate). If that number holds, it would be the lowest buyrate for a WWE PPV since the December 1996 In Your House PPV which was headlined by Bret Hart vs. Sycho Sid. Armageddon last year did 340,000 buys. Credit: Wrestling Observer Newsletter Kind of funny how people can leave out certain statistics to make things look worse than they actually are. It wasn't the worst PPV ever, just the worst since 97, it's still bad, but nowhere's near as bad as that first post made it out to be. Wouldn't at least as much blame for this show fall on Kane or Goldberg? Goldberg was champion going in, Kane was the favored one to win the strap off him. I don't see what the huge difference in posts is.
RavishingRickRudo Posted January 17, 2004 Report Posted January 17, 2004 I'd say the main causes for the poor buyrate would be (in order): 1. Time - the december PPV's traditionally do lower numbers. 2. Card - it sucked. 3. Main Event - It got the most promotion, HHH vs. Goldberg had been going on for months and this was the blow-off, and Kane vs. Goldberg could have been some money had they booked it properly. So what went wrong? Well, it was a 3 way, and no one cared about who would win. I've purchased PPV's *just* for the main event before (UFC 44), so Main Events do effect buying.
Guest Anglesault Posted January 17, 2004 Report Posted January 17, 2004 . Time - the december PPV's traditionally do lower numbers. They usually try to make the main event something really special too. Look at 98-02, all of the mains were either major gimmick matches or had interesting stips. Nothing for 03.
RavishingRickRudo Posted January 17, 2004 Report Posted January 17, 2004 Evolution grabbing all the gold wasn't good enough for you!?!
Guest Anglesault Posted January 17, 2004 Report Posted January 17, 2004 Evolution grabbing all the gold wasn't good enough for you!?! I meant as draw before the show, sillyhead They basically took a guy that hasn't drawn since 00, a guy that hasn't drawn since 98 and a guy that Shane destroyed and decided that it would draw.
RavishingRickRudo Posted January 17, 2004 Report Posted January 17, 2004 Plus they didn't really have a storyline for the 3. I mean really, did they? I can't recall one. Goldberg vs. Kane was so easy to book. Kane is a monster. No one can stop him. Goldberg is the champion. He's the only one who can. Of course, something got in the way of this... let's point our fingers at the usual suspects. Taker's motivation: He's the one who should stop Kane (or) He sure as hell won't job to Kane if Kane had already been beaten by Goldberg. HHH's motivation: Goldberg vs. Kane could actually be successful - might not get the big gold belt back for a while; might not be in the top spot any more; less time to be Ric Flair; more time at home with the wife; more wife; NOOOOOO!!! The PPV bombs, not HHH's fault - he was filming the whole time and was selfless enough to put the spotlight on the two other wrestlers - it's their fault, dad. ... and there are always replays to buy.
Guest Anglesault Posted January 17, 2004 Report Posted January 17, 2004 I blame "The Good McMahon." This disaster is about 75 % is fault, IMHO. If Shane didn't need the egofuck of beating Kane every other week, Kane might still be going strong and they might have done Kane/FGB. It's kind of funny how the "Good McMahon" and "The Good Son" are similar.
RavishingRickRudo Posted January 17, 2004 Report Posted January 17, 2004 I was thinking about putting Shane in there too, but I wouldn't say 75% is his fault... maybe 25% Shane, 25% Taker, 25% HHH, 25% Stupid Writers.
CanadianChick Posted January 17, 2004 Report Posted January 17, 2004 How about Vince? Hey, if the company succeeds, he gets credit, so if the company fails, he gets blamed, right?
RavishingRickRudo Posted January 17, 2004 Report Posted January 17, 2004 That's a gimmie, though. Besides, we really lay into Vince when he headlines a PPV and it bombs
Austin3164life Posted January 17, 2004 Report Posted January 17, 2004 I think it all comes down to Raw not having a star that fans can connect to, like RRR said on the previous page. It's the fact that all the storylines leading into the show had more holes than swiss cheese, thus fans were left confused and/or uninterested. My theory is that the product sucks because the front office, the workers, and the booking team all are depending on that one bolt of lighting to catch (ex. Rise of Hogan, Austin, etc.). They're using excuses (Iraq war, "cyclical" business) as a means of getting through the down times. I can understand that kind of philosophy in 1995-96, however when you have a roster as deep as the one WWE has today, it shows that they simply aren't trying.
Guest Korgath Posted January 17, 2004 Report Posted January 17, 2004 Armageddon's main event had nothing to go for it. AS has already pointed out repeatedly that Kane's heat had all but disappeared by the time December came around. Goldberg was (in my opinion) finally getting the crowd behind him, but ended up defending his title against two supposed "uber heels". Triple H disappears, and suddenly the PPV has ONLY him on the cover?
Scroby Posted January 17, 2004 Report Posted January 17, 2004 Like I said he wasn't even on Raw for two weeks before the match to promote it, but he just shows back up and wins the title at the PPV....well what a fuckin great buyrate there.
Kizzo Posted January 18, 2004 Report Posted January 18, 2004 (edited) Let's look at all the December PPV buyrates starting from 96... IYH: It's Time '96...0.35 IYH: DeGeneration X '97...0.44 IYH: Rock Bottom '98...0.78 Armageddon '99...0.97 Armageddon '00...1.15 Armageddon/Vengeance '01.....0.7 ?? Armageddon '02... 0.5 Armageddon '03....0.40 Edited January 18, 2004 by Kizzo
Guest Mulatto Heat Posted January 18, 2004 Report Posted January 18, 2004 That's because there wasn't an Armageddon PPV in 2001. The December PPV was called Vengeance. Last I heard it did around a 0.7 buyrate. And why'd you change the '03 one from a 0.4 to a 0.45?
Lil' Bitch Posted January 18, 2004 Report Posted January 18, 2004 Well, the December PPVs were always HHH's except for 1996, 2000, and 2001.
Guest Anglesault Posted January 18, 2004 Report Posted January 18, 2004 Well, the December PPVs were always HHH's except for 1996, 2000, and 2001. Huh? Hunter's what?
Guest Anglesault Posted January 18, 2004 Report Posted January 18, 2004 97: Boot Camp Match with Slaughter 98: Was he even on the show? 00: Main Event.
Lil' Bitch Posted January 18, 2004 Report Posted January 18, 2004 95: Won The Hog Pen Match 96: Lost to Mero via DQ 97: Won the Bootcamp match 98: Was he even on the show? Oops, I figured he was, but he defeated Droz on Heat. 99, 00, 02, 03: Main event
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now