10 worst WWF/E buyrates of all time

[chaosrage 0]

Bret Hart's main events.  Both Bret & HBK were main eventing at basically the same time so they are a fair comparison. 

Like fuck they are. Why don't you compare from 1995 and on? If you look at it like that, then Shawn easily wins .83 (or .80) to .74

 

.In Your House 6 - 0.77 (Notice how Bret has brought the buyrates back up.)

 

Notice how Bret brought them wayyyyyyyyyyyy the hell down for It's Time?

 

Summerslam - 0.58 (Worst Summerslam ever. Diesel/Mabel did better.)

 

Diesel/Mabel did better than Summerslam97 too. WM11 with Shawn vs Diesel also did better than Shawn vs Bret at WM12. And of course either Shawn vs Bulldog did much better than IYH5.

 

Plus Shawn's good buyrates can be explained more easily for the most part, especially Royal Rumble 1998 & Wrestlemania XIV where the real draws were Austin/Tyson (compare them to DX in Dec 1997, where it was basically Shawn's show)

 

So it's not fair to give Shawn credit for 98 but it's fair to credit Shawn with a PPV where Shamrock main evented? How does that work? Austin was doing the exact same thing since WM13 but ratings stayed the same and they didn't magically go up until around october. Hey, about the same time DX started. DX (the PPV that is) had the shittiest card ever, but ratings were up. Everybody hated them. That's not to say that they drew as much as Austin in 98, but you can't say that they DIDN'T draw and you sure as hell can't base it on that one shitty ass PPV.

 

Either way, if you can go ahead and try to explain away 98 to Austin, I can explain away 96 to Shawn fighting a lot of nobodies and the under card of every single show being made up of guys nobody cared about.

[Slayer 0]

Either way, if you can go ahead and try to explain away 98 to Austin, I can explain away 96 to Shawn fighting a lot of nobodies and the under card of every single show being made up of guys nobody cared about.

Well, I did have an alternate explanation for post-June '96 earlier, but it got no-sold

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Undercards don't sell PPVs, at least not to the marks and especially not before the smark revolution. 1998 had terrible undercards too, and 1999's were worse.

 

And Bret fought great proven draws like his brother, Yokozuna & Bob Backlund. The December PPVs that drew Bret's lowest buyrates were all at the beginning of Bret Hart's ME runs. He has them raised considerably by the end of his runs. Compare that to Shawn in 1996 who got the ball from Bret and slowly dragged the ratings into the abyss by the fall. His 1998 run coincides with the rise of Austin (only the biggest draw in WWF history) and since he is such a great exception one has to take it into account. Also notice in the 4 PPVs of Shawn's third title run, the two good buyrates were the ones that Mike Tyson was advertised to be at and one certainly featured Austin's Royal Rumble win as the main attraction over the Casket Match.

 

1996 is the best example. That was the year of Shawn Michaels and after a promising start with Royal Rumble 1996 and In Your House 5, Shawn Michaels went from a decent buyrate at GFBE to main eventing four of the lowest buyrates the company has ever seen within six months. His big title defense against Sid of all people at MSG, featured mega-face Shawn getting booed out of the building. The guy was not a draw, and his lackluster performance in 2002 cements it. People will pay to see Shawn vs somebody like Austin or Undertaker who could draw reasonably well, but against most people he performed terribly. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that people pay to watch Shawn's opponents rather than him.

[snuffbox 0]

chaosrage is a Shawn mark...useless to argue against that

[Guest BionicRedneck]

Shawn Michaels couldn't even draw a sell-out (or anywhere even close to a sell-out) crowd in his home town for a PPV main event.

 

He isn't a great draw: FACT.

[Betty Houle 0]

Shawn Michaels couldn't even draw a sell-out (or anywhere even close to a sell-out) crowd in his home town for a PPV main event.

 

He isn't a great draw: FACT.

I'm not getting into this argument too much but...

 

They gave out a lot of comps for Royal Rumble 97 BUT nobody can knock the crowd Shawn drew for that particular show. It was a downtime for the WWF and he drew a HUGE crowd.

[Betty Houle 0]

Shawn Michaels couldn't even draw a sell-out (or anywhere even close to a sell-out) crowd in his home town for a PPV main event.

 

He isn't a great draw: FACT.

I'm not getting into this argument too much but...

 

They gave out a lot of comps for Royal Rumble 97 BUT nobody can knock the crowd Shawn drew for that particular show. It was a downtime for the WWF and he drew a HUGE crowd.

Or, to quote Dave Meltzer:

 

"By the way, even with discounting tickets and all, and it wasn't the success at the gate they had hoped for, selling more than 48,000 tickets in San Antonio, Texas is nothing to sneeze at. Who else in history has ever come close to that? To use that as an example that Michaels isn't a good draw because they didn't sellout a 70,000 seat building is mind boggling."

[Guest BionicRedneck]

Wait, didn't Meltz recently say the crowd was possibly in the 30,000s?

 

If he DID sell that amount of tickets, then I'm actually pretty shocked/impressed.

[Guest Ray]

Austin was doing the exact same thing since WM13

Wrong, boyo. Austin's character in 1998 (when he drew huge) was not the same as his 1997 character. In 98 he was a more clearly defined face. In 97 he was still a major tweener who INSULTED FANS in promos. After the neck injury he started doing more crowd participation and by 1998 was a clear face. Get a clue.

 

but ratings stayed the same and they didn't magically go up until around october.  Hey, about the same time DX started.  DX (the PPV that is) had the shittiest card ever, but ratings were up.  Everybody hated them.  That's not to say that they drew as much as Austin in 98, but you can't say that they DIDN'T draw and you sure as hell can't base it on that one shitty ass PPV.

Give me a break. The ratings didn't shoot up because of DX. The PPV did the worst buyrate of the year. DX DID NOT DRAW.

 

chaosrage is a Shawn mark...useless to argue against that 

Yeah, exactly. Damn Shawn marks...

[chaosrage 0]

Undercards don't sell PPVs, at least not to the marks and especially not before the smark revolution. 

 

So you're saying there's no way in hell that WM14's STACKED under card and SumSlam96 having one of the weakest undercards ever had an effect on the buyrates?

 

1998 had terrible undercards too, and 1999's were worse.

 

Sure, they had terrible undercards if you're a smart mark. But to everyone else, just about every single wrestler was over, almost the extreme opposite of 96.

 

And Bret fought great proven draws like his brother, Yokozuna & Bob Backlund. The December PPVs that drew Bret's lowest buyrates were all at the beginning of Bret Hart's ME runs. He has them raised considerably by the end of his runs.

 

Oh please, he BETTER have raised them considering how low he brought them down!

 

Compare that to Shawn in 1996 who got the ball from Bret and slowly dragged the ratings into the abyss by the fall

 

Yet strangely enough, never as bad as Bret's december PPV where he fought the same opponent. Look at how Shawn took the ball from Bret in 97 and ratings climbed steadily up after that.

 

His 1998 run coincides with the rise of Austin (only the biggest draw in WWF history) and since he is such a great exception one has to take it into account.

 

Austin was a rising star since WM13, so why didn't ratings go up until October and November?

 

Also notice in the 4 PPVs of Shawn's third title run, the two good buyrates were the ones that Mike Tyson was advertised to be at and one certainly featured Austin's Royal Rumble win as the main attraction over the Casket Match.

 

People bought the PPV to see Tyson cheering in the stands instead of for the main event? Uhh...

 

And this is one of the few times I can think of where they actually didn't try to make out the Royal Rumble to be the main event. Austin was in it, but no one else stood a chance. It didn't have any star power. On the other hand, Shawn vs UT had tremendous hype mainly due to Bad Blood.

 

Shawn wasn't even at NWO by the way. Why couldn't the "rise of Austin" sell that one?

 

1996 is the best example. That was the year of Shawn Michaels and after a promising start with Royal Rumble 1996 and In Your House 5, Shawn Michaels went from a decent buyrate at GFBE to main eventing four of the lowest buyrates the company has ever seen within six months. His big title defense against Sid of all people at MSG, featured mega-face Shawn getting booed out of the building.

 

NYC was just a weird crowd. He didn't get booed anywhere else in 96.

 

The guy was not a draw, and his lackluster performance in 2002 cements it. People will pay to see Shawn vs somebody like Austin or Undertaker who could draw reasonably well, but against most people he performed terribly.

 

Alright. Everyone performed terribly, but Shawn still had a better buyrate average than Bret from 95 and on. And Undertaker? Hell, Bad Blood almost did just as much as the WRESTLEMANIA that UT main evented.

[chaosrage 0]

Wrong, boyo. Austin's character in 1998 (when he drew huge) was not the same as his 1997 character. In 98 he was a more clearly defined face. In 97 he was still a major tweener who INSULTED FANS in promos. After the neck injury he started doing more crowd participation and by 1998 was a clear face. Get a clue.

He was a clear face and stopped insulting fans as early as May. He was definitely a face around the USA/Canada angle.

 

Give me a break. The ratings didn't shoot up because of DX. The PPV did the worst buyrate of the year. DX DID NOT DRAW.

 

That PPV proves jack shit. If Shawn fighting Shamrock and HHH fought Sgt Slaugher.is proof that DX can't draw, then Austin fighting Foley at Over the Edge and getting a .5 rating is proof that AUSTIN DID NOT DRAW.

 

Yeah, exactly. Damn Shawn marks...

 

If I'm a Shawn mark and even I didn't order DX, what does that tell you?

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

So you're saying there's no way in hell that WM14's STACKED under card and SumSlam96 having one of the weakest undercards ever had an effect on the buyrates?

 

Wrestlemania XIV had two undercard matches that had interest, Kane/Taker and NAO/Hardcore Legends. HHH/Owen, the mixed tag, Taka/Aquilla, and the battle royal weren't anything and Rock/Shamrock was just an excuse to continue the feud.

 

Summerslam 1996 had the Taker/Mankind Boiler Room brawl which was about on the same level of the Kane/Taker match.

 

Main events are still far and away what draws in the most interest, with special attractions in rare instances (like Austin's return at Unforgiven 2000).

 

Sure, they had terrible undercards if you're a smart mark. But to everyone else, just about every single wrestler was over, almost the extreme opposite of 96.

 

Midcarders that meant anything 1996 - Steve Austin, Undertaker, Mankind, Goldust, Bulldog, Owen

 

Midcarders that meant anything 1998 - HHH, Rock, Mankind, NAO, Shamrock, Owen

 

Unless I missed all that great heat for Dan Severn and Kurrgan, you're overstating things.

 

Oh please, he BETTER have raised them considering how low he brought them down!

 

How low Diesel brought them down.

 

Yet strangely enough, never as bad as Bret's december PPV where he fought the same opponent. Look at how Shawn took the ball from Bret in 97 and ratings climbed steadily up after that.

 

It's Time was just given up on from the beginning. The ads all featured Vader and the PPV was named after him, but he wasn't even on the card. The WWF didn't promote this show at all. The 0.58 that Shawn/Sid drew for the heavily advertised MSG Survivor Series show is far more alarming. And counting these bad buyrates, Bret still outdrew Shawn on AVG which was the point of the whole thing anyways. If Steve Austin & The Rock each main event ten seperate PPVs and Austin draws 1.0 at them all, except 0.4 at one and Rock draws 0.5 for all of them, it doesn't mean Rock is the better draw because none of his buyrates were as low as that one 0.4.

 

Austin was a rising star since WM13, so why didn't ratings go up until October and November?

 

Because nobody was watching it. It was the Montreal audience that got people to tune in again. They then stayed for Austin, and once that happened the bandwagon started rolling.

 

People bought the PPV to see Tyson cheering in the stands instead of for the main event? Uhh...

 

And this is one of the few times I can think of where they actually didn't try to make out the Royal Rumble to be the main event. Austin was in it, but no one else stood a chance. It didn't have any star power. On the other hand, Shawn vs UT had tremendous hype mainly due to Bad Blood.

 

Shawn wasn't even at NWO by the way. Why couldn't the "rise of Austin" sell that one?

 

Austin's win was the thing everybody was talking about heading in Rumble 1998.

 

It was a nothing 8 man match. They would pay to see Austin win the Rumble, and Austin win the title, but No Way Out was basically a long episode of RAW. Tyson wasn't there either.

 

NYC was just a weird crowd. He didn't get booed anywhere else in 96.

 

No, but his dying pops were such a concern that they were going to turn him heel in December before doing a complete 180 before the San Antonio show. Shawn wasn't big at all outside of Texas at that point.

 

Alright. Everyone performed terribly, but Shawn still had a better buyrate average than Bret from 95 and on. And Undertaker? Hell, Bad Blood almost did just as much as the WRESTLEMANIA that UT main evented.

 

Undertaker was an okay draw, but he had the same problem as Shawn & Bret that he couldn't drag Sid to a good rating (Sid was probably the worst main event draw in WWF history). He did a better job holding the fort as champ in 1997 than Shawn did in 1996.

 

As for Bret, you can see a noticeble upward trend following In Your House IV (Bret's first show as champ) and noticeable downward trend following Good Friends, Better Enemies (Shawn's first show as champ). Shawn also has the Austin-era and 2002 stuff inflating his buyrates. If you use those, you have to use 1992 for Bret. And if you do, Bret's ratings dwarf Shawn's.

 

Do you honestly think Shawn Michaels is a better draw than Steve Austin (and yes, you have mentioned Austin lots)? Who else is he a better draw than? The Rock? Hulk Hogan?

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

Sweet & Simple. HBK can't draw worth shit. Trying to defend facts is like trying to defend Ted Bundy. And if anyone thinks thats the character from Married, With Children, you're a dumbass.

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

Trying to credit Shawn for the Mania 14 buyrate is laughable.

It's laughable to credit any one guy for a buyrate, that's the whole point.

I actually was looking forward to Kane/UT more than the Main Event. I was never a "OMG! Its Austin!", or a "OMG! It's Shawn Michaels! And Vince McMahons dick ISNT in his mouth!". I was interested in Tyson though...

[Hektik 0]

Look, both Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels both drew dick. That is a fact, wether you want to blame general lack of interest in wrestling at the time or a shitty undercard, it still comes out the same. Now with that said, Bret drew more than Shawn because Bret was a champion longer. Betweem 1992 and 1997 Bret Hart was champion for 654 days. Shawn was champion from 1996 to 1998 for 397 days. Bret was the guy that was chosen to be the top guy in the WWE. He caried it from the Hulkamania era to the Attitude era. The numbers should have been better for 96 but the WWE made the stupid mistake of putting the title on Nash for a year.

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

Look, both Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels both drew dick. That is a fact, wether you want to blame general lack of interest in wrestling at the time or a shitty undercard, it still comes out the same. Now with that said, Bret drew more than Shawn because Bret was a champion longer. Betweem 1992 and 1997 Bret Hart was champion for 654 days. Shawn was champion from 1996 to 1998 for 397 days. Bret was the guy that was chosen to be the top guy in the WWE. He caried it from the Hulkamania era to the Attitude era. The numbers should have been better for 96 but the WWE made the stupid mistake of putting the title on Nash for a year.

I'm not trying to defend Bret, because he was stuck in a hard situation, as the guy to follw Hulkamania, then being shafted at WM IX, and held in the midcard for a year, then having to carry another lack-luster roster in Main Events.

 

But trying to defend HBK's terrible history when he has drawn more worse PPV buyrates than DIESEL, the all-time leader in not drawing crowds is just hard to swallow.

[IWD 0]

No Way Out 2001: 1.6

I fucking love this show.

[chaosrage 0]

Wrestlemania XIV had two undercard matches that had interest, Kane/Taker and NAO/Hardcore Legends.  HHH/Owen, the mixed tag, Taka/Aquilla, and the battle royal weren't anything and Rock/Shamrock was just an excuse to continue the feud.

 

Summerslam 1996 had the Taker/Mankind Boiler Room brawl which was about on the same level of the Kane/Taker match. 

I'd say Rock/Shamrock and HHH/Owen were almost up there with NAO/HL. They had nice build up and all 4 guys were starting to get over. So you could say that there was one other match on SS that was interesting, while there were at least 4 at WM14. I mean, whatever you think about those two matches they had to have boosted the buyrate more than Sid vs Bulldog or Jake Roberts vs Lawler. Not looking at the main events, who the hell would pick Summerslam 96 over Wrestlemania XIV?

 

As for Kane/Taker, it's not even close. Kane and UT had a whole year of build up and Kane was a monster heel at that point. UT actually seemed geniunely scared to fight him. More people probably wanted to see that then Shawn/Vader. Now, Mankind was a great character, but I don't think he was ever a big draw before socko, except for possibly the middle of 97. I would put the Boiler Room brawl on the same level as NOA/Hardcore Legends.

 

Main events are still far and away what draws in the most interest, with special attractions in rare instances (like Austin's return at Unforgiven 2000).

 

Main events draw more than the rest of the card? Get outta here! It still matters though. This is why Over the Edge with Austin/Dude Love had a crappy buyrate and the PPV the month before with Austin/Dude Love had a good one.

 

Midcarders that meant anything 1996 - Steve Austin, Undertaker, Mankind, Goldust, Bulldog, Owen

 

Midcarders that meant anything 1998 - HHH, Rock, Mankind, NAO, Shamrock, Owen

 

Unless I missed all that great heat for Dan Severn and Kurrgan, you're overstating things.

 

For starters, Austin was the ringmaster before KOTR96. When he came out to the arena, well... you could hear a pin drop. It was bad. After KOTR, he still didn't do anything until Survivor Series. He wrestled in a dark match on Summerlam, I think he might've had an interview segment on Mind Games. Bret/Austin was the best feud ever, but didn't do shit for ratings. To see proof of that, look at Survivor Series 96, Final Four, Revenge of the Taker, Canadian Stampede, or just ratings in general.

 

Bulldog was never over after 92 and the buyrates he had with either Shawn, Bret, or Diesel shows how much of a draw he was. The only time Owen was a draw was 94 and 98. 98 for Montreal, fighting DX, and looking like a legit badass for the first time. Goldust didn't mean anything in either 96 or 98. The only one of those 6 you mentioned that was over was the Undertaker.

 

In 98, everyone from Val Venis to Dlo to NAO to Edge to Taker to Shamrock to Kane to HHH to Owen to Xpac to Sable to the Rock got a good response. No, someone wouldn't have bought a PPV just for Dlo. But combined together, to a casual fan, they make it more of an attractive purchase. If they liked everything they saw on Raw, and most fans did in 98, the PPV is just a bigger version of that.

 

How low Diesel brought them down.

 

Diesel wasn't the one that got the .3.

 

It's Time was just given up on from the beginning. The ads all featured Vader and the PPV was named after him, but he wasn't even on the card. The WWF didn't promote this show at all.

 

But can you say Mind Games was promoted hard? Shawn and Mankind were thrown together without any reason, it wasn't even considered important enough to have a clean finish.

 

The 0.58 that Shawn/Sid drew for the heavily advertised MSG Survivor Series show is far more alarming.

 

Bret/Austin was advertised just as much. On wrestlemania, even more so.

 

And counting these bad buyrates, Bret still outdrew Shawn on AVG which was the point of the whole thing anyways. If Steve Austin & The Rock each main event ten seperate PPVs and Austin draws 1.0 at them all, except 0.4 at one and Rock draws 0.5 for all of them, it doesn't mean Rock is the better draw because none of his buyrates were as low as that one 0.4.

 

Oh right, Bret outdrew Shawn only if you count 93 and 94, before IYHs existed! Every Bret show had was a big 5 show. You don't think that skews the results?

 

Because nobody was watching it. It was the Montreal audience that got people to tune in again. They then stayed for Austin, and once that happened the bandwagon started rolling.

 

That's exactly my point. Nobody was watching it in 96 either. How do you know they didn't stay for DX?

 

Austin's win was the thing everybody was talking about heading in Rumble 1998.

 

When I was in high school, everybody was talking about Austin. But there was also plenty talking about DX, Bad Blood, Kane, etc.. I didn't hear anybody say "Oh god, WWF sucks, Austin's the only thing worth watching". I just didn't hear it. I heard "Did you see what DX did?" or "When is Shawn fighting the Undertaker"? or "I can't wait to see Undertaker beat that faggot at the Rumble."

 

What didn't happen was

 

"Hey, guys did you hear, Mike Tyson is going to be in the audience cheering at the NEXT PPV!!!"

 

::::everyone within the vicinity drops what they're doing and runs home to order the show::

 

It was a nothing 8 man match. They would pay to see Austin win the Rumble, and Austin win the title, but No Way Out was basically a long episode of RAW. Tyson wasn't there either.

 

If No Way Out doesn't count, then International Incident doesn't count. But never mind, insert Over the Edge instead of NWO. It's obvious people weren't throwing away money at every show just because Austin was taking off.

 

No, but his dying pops were such a concern that they were going to turn him heel in December before doing a complete 180 before the San Antonio show. Shawn wasn't big at all outside of Texas at that point.

 

Yeah, that's probably true, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a draw. People get tired of seeing the same thing for 9 months. It happens. Hell, people finally get tired of the Rock and Hogan, two of the greatest draws ever.

 

Undertaker was an okay draw, but he had the same problem as Shawn & Bret that he couldn't drag Sid to a good rating (Sid was probably the worst main event draw in WWF history). He did a better job holding the fort as champ in 1997 than Shawn did in 1996.

 

I was responding to the paragraph where you said "people pay to see Shawn's opponents more than him". Well UT fought Sid and got a really low buyrate, he fought Farooq and he got a low buyrate, he fought Austin and got an okay buyrate, he fought Shawn and got an okay buyrate as well but it was better (one of them at least) than Austin's.

 

As for Bret, you can see a noticeble upward trend following In Your House IV (Bret's first show as champ) and noticeable downward trend following Good Friends, Better Enemies (Shawn's first show as champ). Shawn also has the Austin-era and 2002 stuff inflating his buyrates. If you use those, you have to use 1992 for Bret. And if you do, Bret's ratings dwarf Shawn's.

 

What upward trend? Bret had ONE IYH that did better following IYH5. Giving Bret credit for the shows after he lost the belt just makes it look like you're reaching. A more realistic way to look at it is right after Bret took the belt, they went down, and right after Shawn took the belt they went up. Or maybe Bret's feb IYH can be attributed to the "rise of Shawn". Do you think Bret didn't have a downward trend from when he won the belt in 92 and 94?

 

Again, it's just as fair to use 98 where Austin was inflating buyrates as 96 where the weak cards were DEflating buyrates. You realize, that if Shawn hadn't got injured, buyrates would still have continued to go up and he'd have bound to main event some more of those PPVs from 98-00, right? Then his average would be a whole LOT better than Bret's. That's why this doesn't work.

 

Do you honestly think Shawn Michaels is a better draw than Steve Austin (and yes, you have mentioned Austin lots)? Who else is he a better draw than? The Rock? Hulk Hogan?

 

Cookie Monster says Shawn wasn't a great draw. But he wasn't a bad one either. He was average as a face and good as a heel. Better than Bret, Taker, Diesel, and Sid, but not up there with the greats. I mention Austin a lot because I don't think he was great enough to get everyone and their mama to order WM14 and get a 2.3 rating all by himself, and even though you might not think DX drew, a lot of people hated them and did want to see Shawn get beat up. Tyson and the rest of the card helped, but a lot of things in 96 such as HBK's opponents and the undercard hurt. If you throw out WM14, you have to throw out all of Shawn's PPVs from 96 and 97.

 

Since you're already writing off IYH5, It's Time, Final Four, WM13, Cold Day in Hell, Revenge of the Taker, Canadian Stampede, Summerslam97, RR98, NWO98, and Over the Edge98, I can't see why I can't write off those.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I'd say Rock/Shamrock and HHH/Owen were almost up there with NAO/HL. They had nice build up and all 4 guys were starting to get over. So you could say that there was one other match on SS that was interesting, while there were at least 4 at WM14. I mean, whatever you think about those two matches they had to have boosted the buyrate more than Sid vs Bulldog or Jake Roberts vs Lawler. Not looking at the main events, who the hell would pick Summerslam 96 over Wrestlemania XIV?

 

As for Kane/Taker, it's not even close. Kane and UT had a whole year of build up and Kane was a monster heel at that point. UT actually seemed geniunely scared to fight him. More people probably wanted to see that then Shawn/Vader. Now, Mankind was a great character, but I don't think he was ever a big draw before socko, except for possibly the middle of 97. I would put the Boiler Room brawl on the same level as NOA/Hardcore Legends.

 

Neither Rock/Shamrock nor Owen/HHH were worth much (although Owen/HHH ended up being a pretty good match). Rock didn't really start to get over until after Summerslam, Owen already had his heat crushed by politics, Shamrock had done nothing of note since his title match with Shawn at DX, and HHH was the sidekick for the lame duck champion. As for DX they were cheap heat machines (ala Godfather). They couldn't draw flies, which is why HHH dumped the gimmick as soon as he could at WM XV.

 

As for Taker/Mankind, this was something that had been pretty much building since 1990. Mankind was the first real threat to the Undertaker in like ever, and there was an issue at the time about Paul Bearer's allegiance. Taker/Mankind reached its peak at Summerslam (people were sick of it by Buried Alive). You have overrated Taker/Kane as well. Austin/Taker was THE money match of 1998, and Kane was simply a way to get there. Both Taker/Kane & Taker/Mankind were at about the same level. Bulldog/Sid was basically to be the next big title contender, so you are underrating it as well.

 

 

Main events draw more than the rest of the card? Get outta here! It still matters though. This is why Over the Edge with Austin/Dude Love had a crappy buyrate and the PPV the month before with Austin/Dude Love had a good one.

 

The Main Event makes the show. We have seen it again from Hogan/Andre to Austin/Rock. For example, compare No Way Out 2000 which was based entirely around one match, with Judgement Day 2001 which had a poor main event, but a heavily hyped undercard.

 

For starters, Austin was the ringmaster before KOTR96. When he came out to the arena, well... you could hear a pin drop. It was bad. After KOTR, he still didn't do anything until Survivor Series. He wrestled in a dark match on Summerlam, I think he might've had an interview segment on Mind Games. Bret/Austin was the best feud ever, but didn't do shit for ratings. To see proof of that, look at Survivor Series 96, Final Four, Revenge of the Taker, Canadian Stampede, or just ratings in general.

 

Bulldog was never over after 92 and the buyrates he had with either Shawn, Bret, or Diesel shows how much of a draw he was. The only time Owen was a draw was 94 and 98. 98 for Montreal, fighting DX, and looking like a legit badass for the first time. Goldust didn't mean anything in either 96 or 98. The only one of those 6 you mentioned that was over was the Undertaker.

 

In 98, everyone from Val Venis to Dlo to NAO to Edge to Taker to Shamrock to Kane to HHH to Owen to Xpac to Sable to the Rock got a good response. No, someone wouldn't have bought a PPV just for Dlo. But combined together, to a casual fan, they make it more of an attractive purchase. If they liked everything they saw on Raw, and most fans did in 98, the PPV is just a bigger version of that.

 

Austin was over following KOTR. Austin/Bret didn't set the world on fire ratings wise true, but 1997 was surely an improvement from 1996 with Shawn on top.

 

Taker & Kane were main eventers so they don't count. Of the others, they are at or around the same level as those listed for 1996. Owen didn't mean any more in 1998 than he did in 1996. He was far more over in 1997 during the Hart Foundation angle than he ever was in the Nation. D'Lo, X-Pac, etc. didn't mean squat.

 

 

 

Diesel wasn't the one that got the .3.

 

Bret wasn't the one who was champ when buyrates went from the 1.0 range to the 0.5 range. Bret also was the one who raised it back up for Royal Rumble and IYH 5.

 

But can you say Mind Games was promoted hard? Shawn and Mankind were thrown together without any reason, it wasn't even considered important enough to have a clean finish.

 

It was moreso than It's Time. It's Time is probably the worst PPV in WWF history as far as the amount of effort put into the show. Even This Tuesday In Texas was promoted better.

 

Bret/Austin was advertised just as much. On wrestlemania, even more so.

 

Show me where they main evented those shows and you've got a point. Seems to me they were in the middle of the card. You want another example of main events being what draws. SS 1996 is a great example with a stacked card (Hart/Austin, Taker/Mankind, Special Surprise in Team NOD/Team Yoko) with a crap main event that drew flies, thus the card suffered.

 

Also, using that logic. Shawn & Austin are to blame for KOTR 1997's crappy buyrate. Not Undertaker or Faarooq.

 

 

Oh right, Bret outdrew Shawn only if you count 93 and 94, before IYHs existed! Every Bret show had was a big 5 show. You don't think that skews the results?

 

Ok. That explains how Shawn drew the lowest Royal Rumble buyrate ever and the lowest Summerslam buyrate ever and the second lowest Survivor Series buyrate ever and the second lowest King of the Ring buyrate ever.

 

That's exactly my point. Nobody was watching it in 96 either. How do you know they didn't stay for DX?

 

Could it be because all of the highest quarter-hour ratings from 1997-1999 all had Austin in them, including the most watched match in WWF history (Austin/Taker from after KOTR)? And Austin's merchandise outselling DX merchandise by a wide margin? And DX's PPV being a huge flop?

 

When I was in high school, everybody was talking about Austin. But there was also plenty talking about DX, Bad Blood, Kane, etc.. I didn't hear anybody say "Oh god, WWF sucks, Austin's the only thing worth watching". I just didn't hear it. I heard "Did you see what DX did?" or "When is Shawn fighting the Undertaker"? or "I can't wait to see Undertaker beat that faggot at the Rumble."

 

What didn't happen was

 

"Hey, guys did you hear, Mike Tyson is going to be in the audience cheering at the NEXT PPV!!!"

 

::::everyone within the vicinity drops what they're doing and runs home to order the show::

 

So some dumb teenies are the world's most foremost authority on the wrestling business. These were probably the same guys that bumped the buyrates into the stratusphere for Austin's returns at Backlash 2000 and Unforgiven 2000. What did Shawn's big return get again?

 

If No Way Out doesn't count, then International Incident doesn't count. But never mind, insert Over the Edge instead of NWO. It's obvious people weren't throwing away money at every show just because Austin was taking off.

 

One show where he was still on the rise. Chances are Over the Edge, not the other 10 shows that year where Austin drew good buyrates is the fluke. At the same time, Shawn's PPV buyrates tend to follow this pattern:

 

0.5

0.6

0.45

0.5

2.3

0.55

0.6

0.5

 

Chances are it is the 2.3 which is the fluke.

 

Yeah, that's probably true, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a draw. People get tired of seeing the same thing for 9 months. It happens. Hell, people finally get tired of the Rock and Hogan, two of the greatest draws ever.

 

People got sick of Shawn after 9 months at the latest (numbers will show that they were tired of him by Beware of Dog). People weren't sick of Hogan until 1992, and Rock was superover from late 1998-2001 without the backlash (and that was largely because Austin was back).

 

I was responding to the paragraph where you said "people pay to see Shawn's opponents more than him". Well UT fought Sid and got a really low buyrate, he fought Farooq and he got a low buyrate, he fought Austin and got an okay buyrate, he fought Shawn and got an okay buyrate as well but it was better (one of them at least) than Austin's.

 

So Shawn was a better draw than Faarooq (who was never WWF Champion so shouldn't even be mentioned because we are discussing guys who actually got a shot, not that I think Faarooq would have been successful) and Sid (the lowest drawing WWF Champion ever)? That isn't hard work. Shawn fought three main events against Taker. Ignore the buyrate for Cold Day in Hell when Austin was still a midcarder. Shawn's buyrates are absolutely terrible compared to what Austin would get against Taker later.

 

What upward trend? Bret had ONE IYH that did better following IYH5. Giving Bret credit for the shows after he lost the belt just makes it look like you're reaching. A more realistic way to look at it is right after Bret took the belt, they went down, and right after Shawn took the belt they went up. Or maybe Bret's feb IYH can be attributed to the "rise of Shawn". Do you think Bret didn't have a downward trend from when he won the belt in 92 and 94?

 

Again, it's just as fair to use 98 where Austin was inflating buyrates as 96 where the weak cards were DEflating buyrates. You realize, that if Shawn hadn't got injured, buyrates would still have continued to go up and he'd have bound to main event some more of those PPVs from 98-00, right? Then his average would be a whole LOT better than Bret's. That's why this doesn't work.

 

When Bret lost the belt in 1996, ratings were higher than when he won it. When Shawn lost the belt in 1996, ratings were much lower than when he won it. There was no 'rise of Shawn' because ratings tailed off early into his run after a brief boost. During the 'rise of Austin' ratings kept going up on average until after Wrestlemania X-7. He had help in 2000 because Rock was also one of those rare exceptions that just captivate the audience, like Austin & Hogan were.

 

Wrestlemania XII was better than Wrestlemania XV. Survivor Series 1996 was better than Survivor Series 1998. Yet the 1998 ones drew much better. Austin was the difference.

 

Cookie Monster says Shawn wasn't a great draw. But he wasn't a bad one either. He was average as a face and good as a heel. Better than Bret, Taker, Diesel, and Sid, but not up there with the greats. I mention Austin a lot because I don't think he was great enough to get everyone and their mama to order WM14 and get a 2.3 rating all by himself, and even though you might not think DX drew, a lot of people hated them and did want to see Shawn get beat up. Tyson and the rest of the card helped, but a lot of things in 96 such as HBK's opponents and the undercard hurt. If you throw out WM14, you have to throw out all of Shawn's PPVs from 96 and 97.

 

Since you're already writing off IYH5, It's Time, Final Four, WM13, Cold Day in Hell, Revenge of the Taker, Canadian Stampede, Summerslam97, RR98, NWO98, and Over the Edge98, I can't see why I can't write off those.

 

Shawn was better than Diesel & Sid, not as good as Taker or Bret. And why do you have to throw out 1996 and 1997? Like I said before, if Shawn drew ten 0.5s and one 2.3, chances are 2.3 is the fluke. Especially when there are two things in that main event (Austin, Tyson) who are proven draws (Tyson then, Austin in retrospect) and were creating a huge stir at the time. I didn't see Shawn doing the talk show circuit prior to Wrestlemania XIV, but I sure saw a lot of Austin & Tyson.

 

Bret didn't main event WM 13, Cold Day in Hell or Revenge of the Taker. Shawn didn't main event NWO 98 so I didn't include it. And I'm not throwing out the others. If you saw my calculations on the last page, they were certainly there (not Over the Edge, because I didn't do Austin, but still).

 

Even with those (as well as WM XIV), Shawn still did much poorer than Bret Hart. If he did worse than Bret Hart, then he would get massacred by Austin's numbers.

 

Was Bret Hart a good draw? Absolutely not. But Shawn was an abysmal draw. To even compare his drawing power on the same level of Austin's or Rock's is ludicrous.

[chaosrage 0]

Neither Rock/Shamrock nor Owen/HHH were worth much (although Owen/HHH ended up being a pretty good match).  Rock didn't really start to get over until after Summerslam, Owen already had his heat crushed by politics, Shamrock had done nothing of note since his title match with Shawn at DX, and HHH was the sidekick for the lame duck champion.  As for DX they were cheap heat machines (ala Godfather).  They couldn't draw flies, which is why HHH dumped the gimmick as soon as he could at WM XV. 

No, they weren't worth much, but more than Bulldog/Sid and Roberts/Lawler? Hell yes. And you need to re-watch WM14 or any RAW up to Summerslam if you think the Rock wasn't over.

 

As for Taker/Mankind, this was something that had been pretty much building since 1990. Mankind was the first real threat to the Undertaker in like ever, and there was an issue at the time about Paul Bearer's allegiance. Taker/Mankind reached its peak at Summerslam (people were sick of it by Buried Alive). You have overrated Taker/Kane as well. Austin/Taker was THE money match of 1998, and Kane was simply a way to get there. Both Taker/Kane & Taker/Mankind were at about the same level. Bulldog/Sid was basically to be the next big title contender, so you are underrating it as well.

 

Hah. If Taker/Mankind was building since 1990, then UT/Kane was building for about 40 years. Definitely reaching now. No one gave two shits about Bulldog or Sid.

 

The Main Event makes the show. We have seen it again from Hogan/Andre to Austin/Rock. For example, compare No Way Out 2000 which was based entirely around one match, with Judgement Day 2001 which had a poor main event, but a heavily hyped undercard.

 

I never once said the main event didn't make the show. I said the undercard still matters. What I mean is that 1998 had a lot more popular wrestlers than 1996 that would help the buyrates of Austin's PPVs a lot more. If you don't think the undercard matters, then find a way to explain Over the Edge.

 

Austin was over following KOTR. Austin/Bret didn't set the world on fire ratings wise true, but 1997 was surely an improvement from 1996 with Shawn on top.

 

Again, Austin was over but he didn't do anything. So what?

 

Austin became a main eventer and a face the next year. That's where the improvement (like a 0.1 in ratings) came from.

 

Taker & Kane were main eventers so they don't count. Of the others, they are at or around the same level as those listed for 1996. Owen didn't mean any more in 1998 than he did in 1996. He was far more over in 1997 during the Hart Foundation angle than he ever was in the Nation. D'Lo, X-Pac, etc. didn't mean squat.

 

Of course they count! In 98, you had all of those guys. In 96, you basically had Shawn and the Undertaker. There were louder "D-lo Sucks" chants than anything involving Bulldog in 96. And you're right, when Owen was in the nation he didn't mean anything more than 96, but before that he was over.

 

Bret wasn't the one who was champ when buyrates went from the 1.0 range to the 0.5 range. Bret also was the one who raised it back up for Royal Rumble and IYH 5.

 

Bret also was the one who brought the ratings from a 1.8 range to a 1.2 range. Look, you can't blame Diesel for getting the .3. He NEVER got a .3. If the .3 was Diesel's fault, one of his IYH's would have got that low.

 

It was moreso than It's Time. It's Time is probably the worst PPV in WWF history as far as the amount of effort put into the show. Even This Tuesday In Texas was promoted better.

 

But they were both awful. So if I can't use It's Time, you can't use Mind Games. However, you still can't say anything about IYH5.

 

Show me where they main evented those shows and you've got a point. Seems to me they were in the middle of the card. You want another example of main events being what draws. SS 1996 is a great example with a stacked card (Hart/Austin, Taker/Mankind, Special Surprise in Team NOD/Team Yoko) with a crap main event that drew flies, thus the card suffered.

 

Yeah, they were the middle of the card like Rock/Hogan was the middle of the card. Isn't it still obvious which match was the main event? SS96 would be an example of a stacked card if people cared about Taker/Mankind or NOD/Team Yoko. You even admitted they stopped caring for Taker/Mankind.

 

Also, using that logic. Shawn & Austin are to blame for KOTR 1997's crappy buyrate. Not Undertaker or Faarooq.

 

They should get some of the blame. But Shawn & Austin had what, a week of build up? Two weeks before, it was still looking like it'd be Hart/Michaels. Bret/Austin had at least a good two months of awesome build up.

 

Ok. That explains how Shawn drew the lowest Royal Rumble buyrate ever and the lowest Summerslam buyrate ever and the second lowest Survivor Series buyrate ever and the second lowest King of the Ring buyrate ever.

 

Is that what I asked for? Answer the question right next time or you die.

 

Bret's second highest IYH is a .59. Hmm... I wonder what more of those would do.

 

Could it be because all of the highest quarter-hour ratings from 1997-1999 all had Austin in them, including the most watched match in WWF history (Austin/Taker from after KOTR)? And Austin's merchandise outselling DX merchandise by a wide margin? And DX's PPV being a huge flop?

 

What were the highest quarter-hour ratings from Montreal to WM14? Hell, I bought an Austin shirt instead of a DX shirt because it looked cooler than a DX shirt. DX's PPV, like I've been saying, proves as much about Shawn as No Way Out proves about Austin.

 

So some dumb teenies are the world's most foremost authority on the wrestling business. These were probably the same guys that bumped the buyrates into the stratusphere for Austin's returns at Backlash 2000 and Unforgiven 2000. What did Shawn's big return get again?

 

No, those dumb teenies show that people weren't only talking about Austin going into RR. And I can tell you right now, the amount of idiots that ordered to see Tyson in the audience is somewhere around... 0%. Summerslam02 had a 1.04. Not too bad for buyrates being down.

 

One show where he was still on the rise. Chances are Over the Edge, not the other 10 shows that year where Austin drew good buyrates is the fluke. At the same time, Shawn's PPV buyrates tend to follow this pattern:

 

0.5

0.6

0.45

0.5

2.3

0.55

0.6

0.5

 

Chances are it is the 2.3 which is the fluke.

 

Allright, you can't use those .5's to show Shawn couldn't draw as a heel.

 

Out of 3 PPVs with heel champ Shawn, 2 of them did good and 1 of them did bad. Out of 3 "Rise of Austin" PPVs 2 of them did good and 1 of them did bad. So there's one fluke PPV where Shawn fought Shamrock and one fluke PPV where Austin was in a meaningless tag match.

 

People got sick of Shawn after 9 months at the latest (numbers will show that they were tired of him by Beware of Dog). People weren't sick of Hogan until 1992, and Rock was superover from late 1998-2001 without the backlash (and that was largely because Austin was back).

 

It took people 2 years to get sick of the Rock (post wm99-01). And it took almost 2 years (post wm95-ss96) for people to get sick of Shawn.

 

So Shawn was a better draw than Faarooq (who was never WWF Champion so shouldn't even be mentioned because we are discussing guys who actually got a shot, not that I think Faarooq would have been successful) and Sid (the lowest drawing WWF Champion ever)? That isn't hard work. Shawn fought three main events against Taker. Ignore the buyrate for Cold Day in Hell when Austin was still a midcarder. Shawn's buyrates are absolutely terrible compared to what Austin would get against Taker later.

 

I know it's long posts, but here, the point wasn't that Shawn drew more with Taker, it's that Taker's buyrates fluctuated depending on who he fought. Something you made a big deal out of Shawn doing.

 

When Bret lost the belt in 1996, ratings were higher than when he won it. When Shawn lost the belt in 1996, ratings were much lower than when he won it. There was no 'rise of Shawn' because ratings tailed off early into his run after a brief boost. During the 'rise of Austin' ratings kept going up on average until after Wrestlemania X-7. He had help in 2000 because Rock was also one of those rare exceptions that just captivate the audience, like Austin & Hogan were.

 

There was no rise of Shawn, but ratings and buyrates boosted right after he got the belt? (Despite the fact that Bret left) How did you come up with that?

 

Ratings being high from 98-01 were more due to the Attitude era than just Austin, although he led it.

 

Wrestlemania XII was better than Wrestlemania XV. Survivor Series 1996 was better than Survivor Series 1998. Yet the 1998 ones drew much better. Austin was the difference.

 

This would be like me saying Wrestlemania XI drew more than XII. Diesel was the difference.

 

Shawn was better than Diesel & Sid, not as good as Taker or Bret. And why do you have to throw out 1996 and 1997?

 

Because those were bad years and no one drew in 96 and 97? I thought we went over that.

 

Like I said before, if Shawn drew ten 0.5s and one 2.3, chances are 2.3 is the fluke.

 

If Shawn drew ten 0.5's in 98, you might have a point.

 

Do you think if Shawn was around for the rest of the year, the WWF would've gone bankrupt and been sold to WCW?

 

Especially when there are two things in that main event (Austin, Tyson) who are proven draws (Tyson then, Austin in retrospect) and were creating a huge stir at the time. I didn't see Shawn doing the talk show circuit prior to Wrestlemania XIV, but I sure saw a lot of Austin & Tyson.

 

Yeah, I already said he couldn't compare to Austin.

 

Bret didn't main event WM 13, Cold Day in Hell or Revenge of the Taker. Shawn didn't main event NWO 98 so I didn't include it. And I'm not throwing out the others. If you saw my calculations on the last page, they were certainly there (not Over the Edge, because I didn't do Austin, but still).

 

Who said anything about the last page or calculations? I'm talking about you ignoring the PPVs where UT got horrible buyrates when Shawn wasn't even around, and throwing out Austin's two bad PPVs in 98.

 

Even with those (as well as WM XIV), Shawn still did much poorer than Bret Hart. If he did worse than Bret Hart, then he would get massacred by Austin's numbers.

 

I like how you keep dismissing the fact that Bret didn't have any IYHs from 92-94.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Here's a query...I see many people say that undercards don't matter as far as buyrates go.

 

Take a look at the excellent run of PPV buyrates from early 2000 to WMX7. Without looking back at all of them, I seem to recall that many of them had really good undercards (like, the TLC matches were in there, guys like Angle, Benoit and Jericho were doing well) as far as the wrestling is concerned. Also, I think that the undercard meant more back then; I seem to recall being told that they had some hollywood writers at the time who wanted to make sure that the storylines all meshed, and that people actually had roles to play.

 

Anyway, while I won't argue that undercards can pop a big buyrate, is it really unfair to say that a solid undercard, combined with a good main event, can pop a good buyrate? Or at least better then it would have with a shitty undercard?

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

Welcome new Dave O'Neill, Journalist. Feels like old times in the TNA folder.

[Guest krazykat72]

Bret Hart did not headline the SummerSlam '92 PPV, at least not in America where the much more heavily promoted ME was Warrior vs. Savage, and thus that should be credited with the buyrate. Bret deserves a decent (though nowhere near The Bulldog's credit) for drawing the house, but to credit him for the PPV buyrate is suspect at best.

While Austin and tyson deserve the lion's share of the XIV credit, Shawn deserves some too as the program was well bult up, especially with the "tyson in DX" storyline and Michaels being portayed as a strong foil for Austin.

Also, the WWF lowering buyrates on PPV really only takes place once the IYH's start, and that's probably a better marker to compare Bret and Shawn. Neither was a phenomenal draw, with bret perhaps being *slightly* better, but everyone trying to make it out like he killed Shawn is ridiculous. Neither was all that great, but part of that can be attributed to the Steroid issues, the collapse in overall business, the explosion of the nWo and many other things. Also to compare anyone to Steve Austin is laughable, because with the exception of Hogan, no one is in his league.

 

Paul Jacobi

[Downhome 0]

Call me crazy, but I think differently about all of this.

 

To me, the PPV buyrates tell you more about the fans being willing to spend money on storylines, instead of single performers. To me, the actual TV ratings and the such tell you more about the fans actually caring about any one guy, they tell you more about how much someone is a draw. The PPV buyrate seems to go along more so with how much the fans are willing to pay to see the storylines play out.

 

But, that's just me.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Bret Hart did not headline the SummerSlam '92 PPV, at least not in America where the much more heavily promoted ME was Warrior vs. Savage, and thus that should be credited with the buyrate. Bret deserves a decent (though nowhere near The Bulldog's credit) for drawing the house, but to credit him for the PPV buyrate is suspect at best.

While Austin and tyson deserve the lion's share of the XIV credit, Shawn deserves some too as the program was well bult up, especially with the "tyson in DX" storyline and Michaels being portayed as a strong foil for Austin.

Also, the WWF lowering buyrates on PPV really only takes place once the IYH's start, and that's probably a better marker to compare Bret and Shawn. Neither was a phenomenal draw, with bret perhaps being *slightly* better, but everyone trying to make it out like he killed Shawn is ridiculous. Neither was all that great, but part of that can be attributed to the Steroid issues, the collapse in overall business, the explosion of the nWo and many other things. Also to compare anyone to Steve Austin is laughable, because with the exception of Hogan, no one is in his league.

 

Paul Jacobi

I wasn't trying to make out that he killed Shawn, I'm just saying that he was better. Bret wasn't an extraordinary draw himself. Steve Austin killed Shawn, although chaosrage would seem to disagree.

 

Your other arguments.

 

1) The Steroid Issue. This was a big concern in 1992, which is why we saw Bulldog, Hogan, Sid, Warlord, etc leave the promotion within a short amount of time. This didn't impact the 1995-1997 downfall.

 

2) Collapse in overall business. Yes, but business just doesn't collapse by itself. There are always reasons for it. Diesel's terrible title run is generally considered the primary one, although it isn't all his fault. Doing things like booking Mabel & Kama as top guys in 1995 was just dumb. Diesel does deserve much of the blame though.

 

3) NWO Explosion. I really don't think this impacted the WWF much, other than that it forced them to rebuild by losing their top stars and gave them the drive to push new stars. The highest rating WCW ever had occurred the night after Halloween Havoc 1998, well after the WWF had come back. The height of the NWO from a ratings standpoint (not creatively) came in late 1997-early 1998, which is also when the WWF was on the rise because of Austin. Just as WCW being boneheads led to their downfall, not the WWF being better than them, WCW doesn't seem to be the reason for the lousy business in 1996.

 

PS: I would put Rock up there with Austin & Hogan too.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Call me crazy, but I think differently about all of this.

 

To me, the PPV buyrates tell you more about the fans being willing to spend money on storylines, instead of single performers. To me, the actual TV ratings and the such tell you more about the fans actually caring about any one guy, they tell you more about how much someone is a draw. The PPV buyrate seems to go along more so with how much the fans are willing to pay to see the storylines play out.

 

But, that's just me.

That's because that is how we think when we order stuff. But I have spent enough time around marks over the years, including to this day, to know that they care only about the top 2 or 3 matches/feuds and that's about it. Now the midcard is important for building new stars, and keeping them from getting bored, but it doesn't draw them in.

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

To add more useless-ness to the thread, heres the PPV's ive ordered that had HBK as champ, Bret as champ, and Austin as champ.

 

(list only for when the person was champion, not challenging)

 

Bret Hart:

Royal Rumble 1993

Wrestlemania IX

King Of The Ring 1994

Summerslam 1994

Survivor Series 1994

In Your House 5

Royal Rumble 1996

In Your House 6

Wrestlemania XII

Ground Zero!

Bad Blood

Survivor Series 1997

 

Shawn Michaels:

In Your House: GF, BE

King Of The Ring 1996

Summerslam 1996

Survivor Series 1996

Royal Rumble 1998

Wrestlemania XIV

 

Steve Austin:

Over The Edge 1998

King Of The Ring 1998

Fully Loaded 1998

Summerslam 1998

Breakdown 1998

Fully Loaded 1999

Summerslam 1999

Backlash 2001

Judgment Day 2001

King Of The Ring 2001

Invasion

Summerslam 2001

Unforgiven 2001

Survivor Series 2001

 

 

From the totals, I believe I only missed one PPV with Bret Hart as World Champion (thanks to not having PPV from summer-fall of 1992)

 

Shawn Michaels got several buys, but WWF wasn't my primary focus anymore.

 

Austin made me a wrestling fan again. Hence all the PPV's bought with him as champion.

[Downhome 0]

Call me crazy, but I think differently about all of this.

 

To me, the PPV buyrates tell you more about the fans being willing to spend money on storylines, instead of single performers. To me, the actual TV ratings and the such tell you more about the fans actually caring about any one guy, they tell you more about how much someone is a draw. The PPV buyrate seems to go along more so with how much the fans are willing to pay to see the storylines play out.

 

But, that's just me.

That's because that is how we think when we order stuff. But I have spent enough time around marks over the years, including to this day, to know that they care only about the top 2 or 3 matches/feuds and that's about it. Now the midcard is important for building new stars, and keeping them from getting bored, but it doesn't draw them in.

No, I don't mean people order for the buildup of the midcard and everything. From my experiances over the years, I've just found that even if they love who is in the main event, if they don't care about the storyline that the guy is involved in and what's actually going on in the story, they wont order the PPV.

 

To me it's all about the storylines and angels when talking about PPV buys.

[chaosrage 0]

Steve Austin killed Shawn, although chaosrage would seem to disagree.

 

Look, we all know he had a better run than Shawn. I'm not saying Shawn was a better draw than Austin. I'm saying the idea that even Austin could fight anybody and get a huge buyrate from it is plain bullshit.

Shawn wasn't a great draw. But he wasn't a bad one either. He wasaverage as a face and good as a heel. Better than Bret, Taker, Diesel,and Sid, but not up there with the greats.

I already said he couldn't compare to Austin.

 

So I can see how you would come up with that. Hey, wait a second.....

[chaosrage 0]

3)  NWO Explosion.  I really don't think this impacted the WWF much, other than that it forced them to rebuild by losing their top stars and gave them the drive to push new stars.  The highest rating WCW ever had occurred the night after Halloween Havoc 1998, well after the WWF had come back.  The height of the NWO from a ratings standpoint (not creatively) came in late 1997-early 1998, which is also when the WWF was on the rise because of Austin.  Just as WCW being boneheads led to their downfall, not the WWF being better than them, WCW doesn't seem to be the reason for the lousy business in 1996. 

See, the boom happened in 1998. However when Shawn was champ in 96, ratings were steadily going up until around June or so when Hall and Nash showed up on WCW. Then WWF dropped off a whole point, and WCW went up a whole point. But that could just be a coincidence I guess.