The General Wrestling Thread

[Warner2BruceTD]

It was...In 95, ratings were in the 2's for both companies. By the end of 1997, WCW was in the high 4s and WWF was in the high 3's rating wise...that graph does nothing but PROVE my point. Thanks for that. You can say "pretending" all you want, but the business was already bouncing back from its low point. LOL @ "WCW was doing ok"...it was doing their biggest and best business! WWF was dying, but was slowly bouncing back due to an increased interest in wrestling as a whole. SummerSlam and Survivor Series in 1997 already started to show a bounce back in buyrates. WCW did their biggest PPV ever. Stop talking out your ass.

Unfortunately, if you look at the detail...WWF didn't overtake Nitro for good until the fall...Rock and Mick Foley were trading the title at the top. Austin was with Undertaker. But good work. The RAW after WrestleMania XIV...Nitro actually beat it. In subsequent weeks, wrestling gained an extra full point in ratings...both WCW and WWF were popping high ratings. They would trade weeks and hours throughout the summer and fall. It wasn't until Mick Foley won the title at the start of 1999 that RAW would put Nitro away for good. They didn't lose another hour.

As for Austin being a PPV King...I already said The Rock has probably overtaken him as a PPV King at this point. As for your "ratings dip" comment...I'm at least glad to know you don't know how to read a graph.

Now we are crediting Mick Foley for beating WCW. My god, you have gone crazy trying to defend whatever awful point you are trying to defend.

RE: I can't read a graph- Austin got hurt in the fall of '99. Survivor Series was the injury angle. Please note on the graph where ratings dip between Sept & Dec '99. Please note that they also dip to the lowest levels in six months in March. Austin came back in June and WOW WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT, the rating shot back up, lol. So yeah, they clearly dipped when he wasn't wrestling or on TV every week.

Just so we are clear here...are you disputing that Austin was not the biggest star & biggest draw of the era? If so, you are lost and have no clue. If not, WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT?

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Now we are crediting Mick Foley for beating WCW. My god, you have gone crazy trying to defend whatever awful point you are trying to defend.

RE: I can't read a graph- Austin got hurt in the fall of '99. Survivor Series was the injury angle. Please note on the graph where ratings dip between Sept & Dec '99. Please note that they also dip to the lowest levels in six months in March. Austin came back in June and WOW WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT, the rating shot back up, lol. So yeah, they clearly dipped when he wasn't wrestling or on TV every week.

Just so we are clear here...are you disputing that Austin was not the biggest star & biggest draw of the era? If so, you are lost and have no clue. If not, WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT?

"Star" is a non-quantifiable term. That depends on who you ask. Ask the WCW fans that fell off the earth after the merger and they'd tell you the nWo or Goldberg. Ask Vince, and he'll tell you Austin. Ask a WWE fan...and they'll tell you Austin or The Rock.

"Draw" goes back to my original point that "draws" don't exist or are miscredited since wrestling has gone national...the guys at the top of national wrestling are credited and discredited with the ebb and flow of the business. As you've clearly demonstrated in this discussion...Austin is given the title of biggest draw of the biggest boom period in wrestling simply because it was the biggest boom in wrestling history...the same era that had more "stars" than any era in the history of the business where said stars were concentrated into two national brands. On the flip side guys like Shawn Michaels and Diesel are credited with being awful "draws" during an era of business where the national interest in wrestling was extremely low. Much like today, a guy like John Cena is credited as a draw and top star, yet, wrestling is at an all-time low in regards to eyes on the product.

Wrestling on the national level has changed what a draw is...simple as that. It isn't really quantifiable.

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

AS for not reading the graph...

Dude, you've been a wrestling fan for how long? You should know by now, the fall is the WWE's token "dip" in ratings and builds up again in the new year. November of 98 had ratings of 4.8, 5, 5.5, 4.9, 4.5, 5...November of 99 had ratings of 5.6, 5.9, 5.4, 6.3, 6.5 (with and without Austin)...March of 00 had ratings of 6.4, 6.3, 6.2, 6.6...their ratings at the same time in March 99 had ratings of 6.4, 5.8, 6.4, 6.5 (again, with and without Austin).

Just stop.

[SuperKevin]

Reading all this is worse than reading JimLeavy's Ryback posts

[Warner2BruceTD]

Then I suppose this is the end of the road. If you can't see the obvious pattern of business from the point of Austin's push until the point he wrestled his final match, after i've pointed it out a half dozen times over the last four hours, then what can I do?

You are basically chalking up all of the money Austin drew to this idea that he just happened to be the guy on top during a hot period, while failing to recognize that he was more responsible for that period being so hot than any of his peers.

You can see the TV ratings rise as his push increases, you can see RAW pass Nitro after WrestleMania, and you can see that Nitro only won about 4 weeks total after that point. You can see RAW peak when Austin is at his hottest in '99, which coincidentally is when PPV as a whole peaked. Later, you can see rating slip a bit when Austin is off TV, and bounce back up when he comes back. Then, you can see the numbers begin to tumble as they tease the heel turn. And then PPV bottoms out to 6 year lows right after Austin retires in 2002.

If everybody else was just as responsible for the Attitude Era success, then why is everything measurable lower both before Austin's push, and after he quit, as opposed to when he was on top? Why couldn't these guys carry the company before the push, and why didn't things sustain after Austin left? All of the key players were there before and after. It's just coincidence that it rose as his push grew, peaked as he peaked, and slipped when he was forced to quit? You really expect people to buy that?

It's pretty crazy to me that you can't see that he was the biggest draw, but you clearly aren't coming off this stance, so I guess we are done here.

[s@ppisgod]

Reading all this is worse than reading JimLeavy's Ryback posts

McMahon wants me to buy Larry as a legit top heel, but I just can't buy him over W2B clean.

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Punk/Miz/Rhodes Scholars/Alberto Del Rio

versus

Mick Foley/Kofi Kingston/Team Hell No/Randy Orton

Sounds fucking awful.

[SuperKevin]

Punk/Miz/Rhodes Scholars/Alberto Del Rio

versus

Mick Foley/Kofi Kingston/Team Hell No/Randy Orton

Sounds fucking awful.

Foley isnt wrestling. Ryback is

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Then I suppose this is the end of the road. If you can't see the obvious pattern of business from the point of Austin's push until the point he wrestled his final match, after i've pointed it out a half dozen times over the last four hours, then what can I do?

You are basically chalking up all of the money Austin drew to this idea that he just happened to be the guy on top during a hot period, while failing to recognize that he was more responsible for that period being so hot than any of his peers.

You can see the TV ratings rise as his push increases, you can see RAW pass Nitro after WrestleMania, and you can see that Nitro only won about 4 weeks total after that point. You can see RAW peak when Austin is at his hottest in '99, which coincidentally is when PPV as a whole peaked. Later, you can see rating slip a bit when Austin is off TV, and bounce back up when he comes back. Then, you can see the numbers begin to tumble as they tease the heel turn. And then PPV bottoms out to 6 year lows right after Austin retires in 2002.

If everybody else was just as responsible for the Attitude Era success, then why is everything measurable lower both before Austin's push, and after he quit, as opposed to when he was on top? Why couldn't these guys carry the company before the push, and why didn't things sustain after Austin left? All of the key players were there before and after. It's just coincidence that it rose as his push grew, peaked as he peaked, and slipped when he was forced to quit? You really expect people to buy that?

It's pretty crazy to me that you can't see that he was the biggest draw, but you clearly aren't coming off this stance, so I guess we are done here.

You haven't read a single thing I wrote...as I've refuted everything you've posted here several times in this conversation...

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Foley isnt wrestling. Ryback is

Just fast forwarded through it...didn't see this guy come out...even worse.

[Bigpapa42]

I think this thread has obviously provided the next VSN Wrestling podcast. You two need to make this happen.

[Warner2BruceTD]

You haven't read a single thing I wrote...as I've refuted everything you've posted here several times in this conversation...

Well, you tried to refute me. Good job, good effort.

If you ask anyone who was in WWE will access to all the numbers, from Vince on down, from both eras, and ask who was the biggest draw, everyone will replay Austin and without hesitation, because he sold more tickets, sold more merch, sold more PPVs. Granted, there are huge differences in eras that mitigate those things, but...Austin beat Hogan in every financial category comparing peaks. Hogan did headline more successful shows because of far greater longevity. At his peak, Austin was bigger.

You are pretty much the only person i've ever seen downplay the drawing power of Austin. You are either a crazy genius who is smarter than everybody else, or just crazy. Either way, you're crazy.

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Well, you tried to refute me. Good job, good effort.



You are pretty much the only person i've ever seen downplay the drawing power of Austin. You are either a crazy genius who is smarter than everybody else, or just crazy. Either way, you're crazy.

History is written by the winners, my friend. Never ever forget that. That doesn't mean that is the way it went down.

I DID refute every comment you've made in this thread with STONE COLD (see wut I did thar?) facts...ratings numbers, buyrates, etc. Yet, you just keep saying "Austin was da biggest starz"...and when you've attempted to talk numbers, they were off or made no damn sense or were just regurgitated WWF-speak that people have heard for 10-years.

Considering you "followed the business" at the time...I find it hard to believe you can't understand where exactly the business was at or was going or what it became and why...because you clearly don't understand it.

[JimLeavy59]

"After tonights great RAW, WWE has given us a sneak preview of WWE creative at work. If you, the WWE universe have ever wondered how they come up with the great storylines, angels and booking for their shows, here is your chance to find out how they do it."

[Warner2BruceTD]

History is written by the winners, my friend. Never ever forget that. That doesn't mean that is the way it went down.

I DID refute every comment you've made in this thread with STONE COLD (see wut I did thar?) facts...ratings numbers, buyrates, etc. Yet, you just keep saying "Austin was da biggest starz"...and when you've attempted to talk numbers, they were off or made no damn sense or were just regurgitated WWF-speak that people have heard for 10-years.

Dude...the facts are that he drew the most money, in every conceivable way lol. PPV, house shows, merch, you name it.

You are arguing that the person who drew more money than anybody else ever is not the biggest draw. You are arguing something that everybody in the WWE office, who see the numbers, believes to be true. You are arguing something that Dave Meltzer & Wade Keller, who study this shit for a living and forgot more than we will ever know believe to be true. You are arguing against FACTS. lol.

The best part is, you are so indignant about it, that you seem to think it's absurd that I fall on the other side. I indulge you in overwhelming evidence that the guy was largely responsible for the hottest period ever, and you go out of your way to credit bit players instead. You actually said MICK FOLEY was the guy who was largely responsible for WWE bypassing WCW. Do you realise how mental that is, to ignore everything Austin did, in favor of Foley popping one rating? lol, you are one crazy m'fer.