I wanted to link this in the other thread about the mania buy rates but I can't find the comments on my phone so I'm just gonna put this here. http://www.thecoli.com/threads/graph-of-wrestlemania-buyrate-history-must-see.119366/ Its interesting to see how hard wm19 bombed after the wwe had established mania as a brand. I think one big similarity is NO ONE wanted that brand split at the time and many people got mad at the product. I also think no one wants this authority story and we could get the same results
Wasn't the conclusion on that ppv that it was during a big switch in how either people ordered ppvs or how numbers were calculated (can't remember which), and that's what causes the low buyrate.
I gotta process that. Been going back and forth with people about it all day. That seems like such an outlier there must be an explanation for it, although one is escaping me right now.
Goldberg must have negotiated some sweet deals during his career, because his entire run in WCW lasted 3 years and he did 1 year with WWE 3 years later, and he hasn't wrestled in 10 years. A wrestler turning down pay days for 10 years is unheard of.
I sense a Randy Orton column coming up on WhatCulture. I don't think he deserves the hate (for reasons detailed this week on the blog), but it'd be interesting to hear Scott's POV.
Speaking of Brock, I know there's been a ton of talk of doing Lesnar/Taker, but man, Brock needs someone who can bump around for him, and Taker is not that guy. Am I the only one thinking this match is a styles-clash nightmare at this point? We're a long way from the awesome HIAC they had at No Mercy 2002.
Wow! When he was on there last time he blamed him for the Angle feud falling flat because HHH wouldn't let Kurt have Stephanie. How dare HHH show any weakness.
Just within wwe, I'd pick the punk/Cena raw match or Brock/Punk SS.
Interesting note on the Punk/Cena match...Keller said he had a source that said Cena and Punk wanted to go out and have a 5 star match to he ha too essentially show up/motivate the Rock to up his game up for 29. Always thought that was interesting.
When I heard Brock was coming back that's what I hoped would happen. Beat Cena at Extreme Rules, beat Orton at the May or June PPV, then beat Triple H at Summerslam. In my (extreme) naivety I then thought he'd either lose to Punk or Bryan at WrestleMania.
Could t agree more. Why would it be any different from those HHH/Brock matches? If they do go Taker/Brock, just go completely over the top blood and violence to try and hide their deficiencies
Someone around here pitches the idea, sorry forget who it was, but the idea of HHH making the deal with the devil and bringing in Brock to finally get rid of the annoying Bryan would be pretty awesome.
The "waah" was directly about your point of Punk being the ONLY guy who Lesnar beat straight up when he's wrestled ONLY two other guys. It's not like Lesnar did jobs up and down the roster for the past two years; he lost to the biggest star in the company and did a series with the CEO where he lost one and won two. This isn't Jobber McJobberton beating Punk out of nowhere.
Also, the whole "Punk needed to beat Lesnar": you guys get so attached to these ideas and there's no possible alternative. As if Punk beating Lesnar, or beating him in a rematch at HitC would have skyrocketed him to the top or given him "credibility". "Credibility" is the same as "building momentum" and "vintage": buzz words in a staged sport that ultimately nothing. Vince McMahon was not going to watch Punk beat Lesnar in a great match and think "Man, that guy has IT! I should react differently than I have at every other opportunity over the last ten years, including the first time Punk got hot, and put him over Cena and make him Super Champion again for another year."
Sid vs Taker was the match for the title that got thrown together a few weeks before Mania.
Bret vs Austin was the match that got all the promo time, had the submission gimmick, and was paying off a multi-month feud. THAT match was positioned to draw, and it didn't draw shit. Austin's match at Mania 13 was positioned to draw money and it didn't draw shit.
" buzz words in a staged sport that ultimately nothing." Wait, wrestling is fake? Holy shit, I had no idea! Thanks for smartening me up oh wise one! yes it's staged, but wins and losses do matter because that's why fans pay to see the show-- to watch wrestling matches and see who wins. Otherwise the main event of Wrestlemania would be a fucking Great Khali dance contest. Having a wrestler go over another star wrestler is definitely a huge part of getting someone over. When WWE was building John Cena as a top guy, they had him going over huge stars (Show, JBL, HHH, and HBK) at four straight Manias because THAT HELPED MAKE HIM A STAR. Fans take notice of who wins and loses the big matches, and the winners seem more important to fans. That's how it works.
If Punk beats Lesnar in a heavily hyped match then YES that is a big deal and something that could make the winning wrestler into a bigger star in the fans eyes. Instead, they feel the need to waste Lesnar losses on guys who absolutely don't need the rub (Cena) and aren't even actual wrestlers anymore (HHH, soon to be Taker.)
"defeating Brock lesnar" is a tool in their toolshed that they've absolutely wasted. Instead of using Brock to create money-drawing stars, they basically brought him in to put over their inner circle. HHH gets to beat Lesnar at Mania, Taker gets to beat him this year, and neither of those wins will mean ANYTHING to creating interesting storylines for the fans or getting anyone over.
And be a smartass all you want, but that's the way it is: they've booked Lesnar terribly just to satisfy their own egos. They've made Lesnar look shitty (his final win over HHH came on the B-ppv in a match that HHH kicked his ass for 20 minutes and Lesnar actually was crying for HHH to stop), they haven't done anything interesting with him, and he's basically here to job to HHH and Taker at Mania. And I don't care if he's only wrestled 3 guys or a hundred, he shouldn't be putting over the old timers while beating someone like Punk who is in a position to draw TV/house/PPV numbers all year. Punk beating Lesnar clean at Summerslam absolutely makes Punk a bigger deal to the audience, and is way more valuable than HHH's circle jerk win at Mania.
It's a fucking joke dude. At this point I really want them to do Cena vs Taker as soon as possible, have Cena go over (turn heel or win as a face, I really don't care) and be done with The Streak. I am beyond sick of the HHH/HBK/Taker generation.
Wrestlemania 28 was the End of An Era match in which all three of them were supposed to ride off into the sunset...and then a year later Taker is going over Punk, and HHH & HBK are going over Lesnar. What the FUCK? Are those three ever gonna go away?
Austin didn't draw shit for his first year as a heavily pushed top guy, including Mania 13. Taker-Sid went on last because it had the happy ending good guy win. Austin-Bret was the most heavily pushed feud and match on that show, and it drew the lowest Mania buyrate of all-time.
"yes it's staged, but wins and losses do matter because that's why fans pay to see the show-- to watch wrestling matches and see who wins."
I truely think that this isn't true for a lot of younger fans. from the minute they first saw the WWE they have basically been conditioned to believe that wins and losses don't really matter.
the topstars getting pinned in one match doesn't "make" a guy anymore (I mentioned that in some other thread: there is a reason that it took three ppv matches and a feud in which he got the best of Triple H a lot of times to build Batista up to the level that they did in 2005. if he had just won one ppv match, even WrestleMania and they stopped his push after that he would have been more similar to Benoit one year earlier).
I wanted to link this in the other thread about the mania buy rates but I can't find the comments on my phone so I'm just gonna put this here.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thecoli.com/threads/graph-of-wrestlemania-buyrate-history-must-see.119366/
Its interesting to see how hard wm19 bombed after the wwe had established mania as a brand. I think one big similarity is NO ONE wanted that brand split at the time and many people got mad at the product. I also think no one wants this authority story and we could get the same results
The only way I'd want to see Brock vs. Orton is if it's a legitimate MMA fight. Randy would come out of it looking like Benoit's kid.
ReplyDeleteWasn't the conclusion on that ppv that it was during a big switch in how either people ordered ppvs or how numbers were calculated (can't remember which), and that's what causes the low buyrate.
ReplyDeleteConcur.
ReplyDeleteI gotta process that. Been going back and forth with people about it all day. That seems like such an outlier there must be an explanation for it, although one is escaping me right now.
ReplyDeleteDown votes are so 2013...
ReplyDeleteBrock should have beaten Cena at Extreme Rules, then Orton at Over the Limit.
ReplyDeleteAbeyance wasn't drawing for wm four huh?
ReplyDeleteI'm with Scott on this. Just run a quick skit where Brock is terrorizing everyone in the ring, Hulkster comes out, and eats an Owen Hart Piledriver.
ReplyDeleteThe 15 minutes loading Terry into the ambulance would be the perfect bathroom break.
Goldberg must have negotiated some sweet deals during his career, because his entire run in WCW lasted 3 years and he did 1 year with WWE 3 years later, and he hasn't wrestled in 10 years. A wrestler turning down pay days for 10 years is unheard of.
ReplyDeleteI sense a Randy Orton column coming up on WhatCulture. I don't think he deserves the hate (for reasons detailed this week on the blog), but it'd be interesting to hear Scott's POV.
ReplyDeleteHe didn't put enough people over on the way out....
ReplyDeleteThat's gonna be one long ass commercial break.
ReplyDeleteIt's what I get for being a smartass.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Brock, I know there's been a ton of talk of doing Lesnar/Taker, but man, Brock needs someone who can bump around for him, and Taker is not that guy. Am I the only one thinking this match is a styles-clash nightmare at this point? We're a long way from the awesome HIAC they had at No Mercy 2002.
ReplyDeleteWow! When he was on there last time he blamed him for the Angle feud falling flat because HHH wouldn't let Kurt have Stephanie. How dare HHH show any weakness.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of Bryan kicking the shit out of Lesnar makes me smile in delight.
ReplyDeleteJust within wwe, I'd pick the punk/Cena raw match or Brock/Punk SS.
ReplyDeleteInteresting note on the Punk/Cena match...Keller said he had a source that said Cena and Punk wanted to go out and have a 5 star match to he ha too essentially show up/motivate the Rock to up his game up for 29. Always thought that was interesting.
When I heard Brock was coming back that's what I hoped would happen. Beat Cena at Extreme Rules, beat Orton at the May or June PPV, then beat Triple H at Summerslam. In my (extreme) naivety I then thought he'd either lose to Punk or Bryan at WrestleMania.
ReplyDeleteCould t agree more. Why would it be any different from those HHH/Brock matches? If they do go Taker/Brock, just go completely over the top blood and violence to try and hide their deficiencies
ReplyDeleteSomeone around here pitches the idea, sorry forget who it was, but the idea of HHH making the deal with the devil and bringing in Brock to finally get rid of the annoying Bryan would be pretty awesome.
ReplyDeleteI feel that way about most sporting events.
ReplyDeleteI did not downvote. And, do the Hogan rants if you find them amusing. I'm just anti-him. As for respect, meh. Just be courteous.
ReplyDeleteFunny you mention that, I just wondered if something like that was the case... good for them... imagine if that was on WM29
ReplyDeleteThe "waah" was directly about your point of Punk being the ONLY guy who Lesnar beat straight up when he's wrestled ONLY two other guys. It's not like Lesnar did jobs up and down the roster for the past two years; he lost to the biggest star in the company and did a series with the CEO where he lost one and won two. This isn't Jobber McJobberton beating Punk out of nowhere.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the whole "Punk needed to beat Lesnar": you guys get so attached to these ideas and there's no possible alternative. As if Punk beating Lesnar, or beating him in a rematch at HitC would have skyrocketed him to the top or given him "credibility". "Credibility" is the same as "building momentum" and "vintage": buzz words in a staged sport that ultimately nothing. Vince McMahon was not going to watch Punk beat Lesnar in a great match and think "Man, that guy has IT! I should react differently than I have at every other opportunity over the last ten years, including the first time Punk got hot, and put him over Cena and make him Super Champion again for another year."
Sid vs Taker was the match for the title that got thrown together a few weeks before Mania.
ReplyDeleteBret vs Austin was the match that got all the promo time, had the submission gimmick, and was paying off a multi-month feud. THAT match was positioned to draw, and it didn't draw shit. Austin's match at Mania 13 was positioned to draw money and it didn't draw shit.
It didn't draw shit because nothing drew shit. And it wasn't the main event because they didn't think it was a main event match.
ReplyDelete" buzz words in a staged sport that ultimately nothing." Wait, wrestling is fake? Holy shit, I had no idea! Thanks for smartening me up oh wise one!
ReplyDeleteyes it's staged, but wins and losses do matter because that's why fans pay to see the show-- to watch wrestling matches and see who wins. Otherwise the main event of Wrestlemania would be a fucking Great Khali dance contest. Having a wrestler go over another star wrestler is definitely a huge part of getting someone over. When WWE was building John Cena as a top guy, they had him going over huge stars (Show, JBL, HHH, and HBK) at four straight Manias because THAT HELPED MAKE HIM A STAR. Fans take notice of who wins and loses the big matches, and the winners seem more important to fans. That's how it works.
If Punk beats Lesnar in a heavily hyped match then YES that is a big deal and something that could make the winning wrestler into a bigger star in the fans eyes. Instead, they feel the need to waste Lesnar losses on guys who absolutely don't need the rub (Cena) and aren't even actual wrestlers anymore (HHH, soon to be Taker.)
"defeating Brock lesnar" is a tool in their toolshed that they've absolutely wasted. Instead of using Brock to create money-drawing stars, they basically brought him in to put over their inner circle. HHH gets to beat Lesnar at Mania, Taker gets to beat him this year, and neither of those wins will mean ANYTHING to creating interesting storylines for the fans or getting anyone over.
And be a smartass all you want, but that's the way it is: they've booked Lesnar terribly just to satisfy their own egos. They've made Lesnar look shitty (his final win over HHH came on the B-ppv in a match that HHH kicked his ass for 20 minutes and Lesnar actually was crying for HHH to stop), they haven't done anything interesting with him, and he's basically here to job to HHH and Taker at Mania. And I don't care if he's only wrestled 3 guys or a hundred, he shouldn't be putting over the old timers while beating someone like Punk who is in a position to draw TV/house/PPV numbers all year. Punk beating Lesnar clean at Summerslam absolutely makes Punk a bigger deal to the audience, and is way more valuable than HHH's circle jerk win at Mania.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you said fuck you on the internet. U r tuff!
ReplyDeleteIt's a fucking joke dude. At this point I really want them to do Cena vs Taker as soon as possible, have Cena go over (turn heel or win as a face, I really don't care) and be done with The Streak. I am beyond sick of the HHH/HBK/Taker generation.
ReplyDeleteWrestlemania 28 was the End of An Era match in which all three of them were supposed to ride off into the sunset...and then a year later Taker is going over Punk, and HHH & HBK are going over Lesnar. What the FUCK? Are those three ever gonna go away?
Austin didn't draw shit for his first year as a heavily pushed top guy, including Mania 13.
ReplyDeleteTaker-Sid went on last because it had the happy ending good guy win.
Austin-Bret was the most heavily pushed feud and match on that show, and it drew the lowest Mania buyrate of all-time.
"yes it's staged, but wins and losses do matter because that's why fans
ReplyDeletepay to see the show-- to watch wrestling matches and see who wins."
I truely think that this isn't true for a lot of younger fans. from the minute they first saw the WWE they have basically been conditioned to believe that wins and losses don't really matter.
the topstars getting pinned in one match doesn't "make" a guy anymore (I mentioned that in some other thread: there is a reason that it took three ppv matches and a feud in which he got the best of Triple H a lot of times to build Batista up to the level that they did in 2005. if he had just won one ppv match, even WrestleMania and they stopped his push after that he would have been more similar to Benoit one year earlier).
And yet, some consider that the 2nd best match on that show. A mind blowing 2013 from a company I thought I would never really get into..
ReplyDelete