The General Wrestling Thread

[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.

 

[s@ppisgod]

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

You mean arguments that end in a 60 minute time limit draw? For the record, I think X-Pac going back to WWF is the true catalyst that put them over the top.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

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.

The entire business drew more money than it ever did. Whether he was there or not, the entire business, drew more money, sold more tickets, sold more merch, you name it, more than it did before the entire Monday Night Wars started...and it ended, effectively, the day the Monday Night Wars ended.

However, your FACTS are not even stated...show me Stone Cold's merchandise sales versus the field and compare it to other eras...of course Stone Cold sold more merch...no one has ever had more merch available. Wrestling had never had that many people even around the product to buy the merch. There are so many factors that go into that kind of number its silly. Show me the numbers that STONE COLD STEVE AUSTIN personally sold in regards to the seats at house shows and pay per view gates and buys and compare it to the field (yeah, good luck trying to differentiate the drawing power of The Rock and Steve Austin on the same card at a house show in Omaha, Nebraska...c'mon, do you know how silly that shit sounds?).

Even Big Dave and Wade Keller only quantify their stance by saying "ask anyone in the WWE who drew the most"...well...duh...they won the war...they can say whatever they want and give credit to whomever they want.

However, look at the trend in which the business was going...from its lowest point in 1995 to 1997, the business grew by several multiples...the WWE was still digging itself out of the hole, but business was on the uptick. WCW was already seeing their best business ever, after digging themselves out of their own hole...it was inevitable that the WWE was going to do the same. Yeah, give Austin credit for that big buyrate pop at WM...no need to credit bringing in Tyson. The Monday Night Wars were going to pop the industry regardless, it was already on its way. There were so many factors that went into the boom of the business to simply lay it claim to the immenseness of Austin is short sighted and honestly, silly...it doesn't even make any sense. It wasn't fucking Hulkamania running wild in an era of the industry where only he was the only game in town at that level. It was the entire industry running at full speed...everyone was doing monster business and everyone was "drawing"...

I don't think its "absurd" you are on the other side...I just think its an aspect of wrestling history that people just take at the face value told and don't actually remember anything about the era or look at it in the broad scope. The broad scope and numbers we can actually see, tell a bit of a different story.

And, again, I haven't ignored a single thing Austin did...he was a big part, but he wasn't the only big part of the industry's biggest boom period.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

The entire business drew more money than it ever did. Whether he was there or not, the entire business, drew more money, sold more tickets, sold more merch, you name it, more than it did before the entire Monday Night Wars started...and it ended, effectively, the day the Monday Night Wars ended.

The bold is where you are coming off badly and sounding like you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I applaud you for trying to take the harder side of an impossible argument, but to say that the wrestling business would have risen to the same heights without Austin is just mental. There is a clear line where you can see the uptick take place, in ratings, PPV, and attendance, and that line begins at the start of Austin's push.

You chalk this up to happenstance. That's fine, but you're wrong.

However, your FACTS are not even stated...show me Stone Cold's merchandise sales versus the field and compare it to other eras. Show me the numbers that STONE COLD STEVE AUSTIN personally sold in regards to the seats at house shows and pay per view gates and buys and compare it to the field (yeah, good luck trying to differentiate the drawing power of The Rock and Steve Austin on the same card at a house show in Omaha, Nebraska...c'mon, do you know how silly that shit sounds?).

Now you are just being wacky. But i'll bite.

Shows headlined that drew over 10,000 fans:

1998 - 1. Steve Austin (set all-time record for most big gates in one year); 2. Undertaker; 3. Kane; 4. Mick Foley; 5. The Rock; 6. Bill Goldberg; 7. Hulk Hogan; 8. HHH; 9. Sting; 10. Randy Savage

Remember, this is coming off of 1997, when the WWF couldn't draw flies until the second half of the year when...wait for it....wait for it....STEVE AUSTIN got his first mild push.

I'm sure you will discredit Austin by saying look at #2-#5, but understand that Austin broke the all time record for most 10k+ houses, and if it was because of the guys ranked 2-5, then one would think WWF would have had a great year in 1997 (they didnt) and 1996 (L-O-fucking-L), since all of those guys were there during those years, and all but Rock were pushed as main eventers (and Rock WOULD have been pushed as one had he not flopped in the role).

It is crystal clear that Austin is the guy who caught fire in 1998, can not be disputed.

Even Big Dave and Wade Keller only quantify their stance by saying "ask anyone in the WWE who drew the most"...well...duh...they won the war...they can say whatever they want.

Oh for fucks sake.

Now you are suggesting that the two most respected journalists in the field rely on WWE revisionist history, as if they watched the Monday Night Wars DVD as opposed to the years of following business trends and research that they both do.

The reason people like Metlzer & Keller believe that Austin was the best draw, is because he was. The PPV, house show, merch, etc all back that up, no matter how much you try to attribute it to everybody else and ignore the obvious trends that suggest otherwise.

However, look at the trend in which the business was going...from its lowest point in 1995 to 1997, the business grew by several multiples...the WWE was still digging itself out of the hole, but business was on the uptick.

Alright, i'm with you...

WCW was already seeing their best business ever, after digging themselves out of their own hole. The Monday Night Wars were going to pop the industry regardless.

No. You have no basis for saying that the Monday Night Wars (MNW, for future ease) were going to turn around the business regardless. That didn't work very well for TNA, did it? And the MNW didn't propel the business at first, it just propelled WCW. WWF went down early on. Wanna know when it went back up? That's rhetorical, btw.

There were so many factors that went into the boom of the business to simply lay it claim to the immenseness of Austin is short sighted and honestly, silly...it doesn't even make any sense. It wasn't fucking Hulkamania running wild in an era of the industry where only he was the only game in town at that level. It was the entire industry running at full speed...everyone was doing monster business and everyone was "drawing"...

Strawman is back. I never ever gave Austin all of the credit. And don't dig up the one out of context quote. My overriding theme here has been that Austin was the biggest draw, the biggest star. Not the ONLY draw, or ONLY star. Of course the Rock & Goldberg & Foley & others were stars. But Austin was the biggest and had the most impact.

I don't think its "absurd" you are on the other side...I just think its an aspect of wrestling history that people just take at the face value told and don't actually remember anything about the era or look at it in the broad scope.

And, again, I haven't ignored a single thing Austin did...he was a big part, but he wasn't the only big part of the industry's biggest boom period.

I don't think you give Austin nearly enough credit for his star power, and you don't think I give the other guys enough. That's what this boils down to.

I will leave Vince out of this, but I rank them this way:

1. Austin. I've explained at length. Wrestling was on the brink of breakout, and Austin ignited the big boom & pushed it over the top.
2. The Rock. Came into his own and held up his end after Austin got things rolling in the WWE. Big drawing years from 1999-2001.
3. Goldberg. Gave WCW a glimmer of hope after Austin pushed WWF ahead. Popped a few big rating & buyrates.
4. Hogan. In the middle of it all. Would NWO have thrived like it did without him? Was in the big TV match vs Goldberg, and the big PPV match vs Sting.

There were others of course, but Austin's main events drew the most money and that stuff can't be disputed. And when Austin went away, things nose dived. Yes, they were going to drop anyway, many WCW fans left and would never return, but WWE business dropped and dropped fast after WrestleMania at Safeco. That cant be blamed on WCW fans who werent watching anyway. Interest was lost when they did the Austin heel turn that pissed people off, and it crawled downward until Austin left, and then it nose dived until 2006.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

I just wrote an entire rebuttal post and lost it...

I'll just quickly summarize without the FirstTimer esque response...

---

RE: Your gate numbers...

Skewed beyond recognition. WWF thrived on house shows to even survive at this point. WCW didn't even care. They were notorious for putting on half assed house shows. Also, the expansion of PPVs in 1996 certain help those numbers for Austin. Talents 1-5 basically headlined every show...many were three ways or with guys in referee roles or tag team matches...its just silly to credit to a singular guy for that kind of statistic. It is one of the premier reasons why I find the idea of "draws" being an un-quantifiable variable at this level. I mean, do fans vote on who they came to see at each show, no.

---

RE: Big Dave and Wade Keller

They only know what they are told. And, as I mentioned...history is told by the winners.

---

RE: Where business was headed...

Numbers show business was on the uptick.

Pre-1995, wrestling was at its lowest point financially across the board. But, RAW went on Mondays...Nitro joined them...and from there, Wrestling as a whole, slowly crawled out of the hole it was in. From 1995 to mid 1996, Nitro's audience doubled. RAWs grew substantially over a year. Buyrates were rising. Now, there was a point in 1996 where the WWF's business dropped...if I recall correctly, there was a dog show or two that really fucked them good, and they took an entire month off from television...during these periods, WCW's ratings grew by similar numbers to what left the WWF audience and they just so happen to get hot with the nWo angle at the time...however, a by the end of 1997, the WWF would be able to ride the coattails to WCW's success as the demand for wrestling on the whole was growing (RAWs ratings were growing and buyrates were on the upswing). By the end of 1997, WCW was doing their best business...WWF was still struggling, but climbing out...they would get Mike Tyson to show up and the rest is history. But, at the time, more people were willing to spend money on wrestling, as seen by the Starrcade buyrate.

---

As for the rest...there are so many factors that led to the growth of wrestling...its silly. It was a snowball effect...it isn't undercutting Austin's importance, but it is highlighting how important every other factor was in the re-birth of American wrestling from a business perspective. Especially from a WWF perspective, they had a group of guys at the top - NOT JUST AUSTIN - that basically willed their way out of the hole and into national prominence. So, when you say "Austin was the biggest and by far the most important" its just not true and that is the peak of revisionist history.

As for the ratings decrease...the WWF's ratings were dropping well before the purchase of WCW and turning Stone Cold heel. In what would have been the WWF's boom period right before WrestleMania...ratings dipped to levels they hadn't seen in over 3 years. They were basically pulling low 5's and high 4's for seven months leading up to the purchase of WCW. WCW's ratings, obviously in the shitter. WrestleMania X-7 was a helluva show, but considering the ratings at the time, obvious got a boost in the buyrate area with the purchase of WCW.

As for the pay per views...Austin certain gets a ton of credit...but, if you look across the board, PPVs were up and the top guys were swapping the top spot over and over again. And, ratings didn't nose dive when he left...that's just an exaggeration. They were also down when he was back, too. So, your point really is invalid...the ebb and flow of business and the interest as a whole went down. before Austin even turned heel. X-7 popped a big rating because of the WCW merger...but otherwise, business stagnated after that, but had started to well beforehand.

 

[EmpireWF]

As for the pay per views...Austin certain gets a ton of credit...but, if you look across the board, PPVs were up and the top guys were swapping the top spot over and over again.

How is that accurate?

Austin became THE GUY at WM in 98 and remained THE GUY until he left to get neck surgery in late 99. He main evented all but 2 PPVs during that span.

WM 14 over Shawn
Unforgiven over Dude Love (match was built around Vince & Austin)
OTE over Dude Love
KOTR he lost the belt to Kane being screwed (he won it back the next night)
Fully Loaded with Taker over Kane & Mankind (setting up the road to Summerslam)
SS over Taker
Breakdown he dropped the belt in a mosh as Taker & Kane both pinned him, the title was put up
Judgment Day No Contest between Kane & Taker because Austin was ref and fucked Vince over (during the McMahon feud)
SS the tournament for the belt (Austin lost in the semis because of the McMahons….Rock was crowned over Mankind, aligned with Vince)
Rock Bottom Austin beat Taker (Rock over Mankind in the semi with Vince fucking Foley over)

RR was built all around McMahon & Austin (Rock & Foley in the semi main)
STVDM Austin over McMahon in the cage (Big Show debuted) (Rocky over Mankind in the semi)
WM Austin over Rock
Backlash Austin over Rock
OTE Taker over Austin (Rock & HHH in the semi)
KOTR Austin vs. Vince & Shane (Rock vs. Taker for the belt in the semi)
Fully Loaded had Austin and Taker in a first blood match (Rocky vs. HHH in the semi)
SS Mankind wins the belt in a 3 way with HHH and Austin (the Jessie Ventura show)
Unforgiven had a 6-man match for the title with Austin as ref -- HHH/Foley/Bulldog/Kane/Show/Rock
No Mercy had HHH over Austin for the belt (Austin was done after this)


Yes you had your supporting players but 90% or whatever the number is was built around Austin and Austin vs. McMahon

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

RE: Your gate numbers...

Skewed beyond recognition. WWF thrived on house shows to even survive at this point. WCW didn't even care. They were notorious for putting on half assed house shows. Also, the expansion of PPVs in 1996 certain help those numbers for Austin. Talents 1-5 basically headlined every show...many were three ways or with guys in referee roles or tag team matches...its just silly to credit to a singular guy for that kind of statistic. It is one of the premier reasons why I find the idea of "draws" being an un-quantifiable variable at this level. I mean, do fans vote on who they came to see at each show, no.

There is nothing "skewed" about that chart. It includes all shows. House, TV, PPV. Austin drew more 10k+ houses in 1998 than any wrestler ever up to that point in history. WCW running half ass house shows means nothing in relation to what WWF drew and is a total non point.

It's amazing how far you will go to discredit Austin. I think you are badly misremembering how hot he was. There is nothing "skewed", there is no debate who drew those gates. Austin was the headliner, he was on the marquee for more shows that drew over 10k than anybody else in history. HE was on top. And the only reason #2-#5 are on that list, is because they worked with Austin. Not the other way around. People were paying to see Stone Cold Steve Austin in 1998. he was red fucking hot and changed the company fortunes.

---

RE: Big Dave and Wade Keller

They only know what they are told. And, as I mentioned...history is told by the winners.

You are amazingly off base on this. I won't even comment further. It;s obvious that you have no understanding of what these guys do or how they ascertain their information.

---

RE: Where business was headed...

Numbers show business was on the uptick.

Pre-1995, wrestling was at its lowest point financially across the board. But, RAW went on Mondays...Nitro joined them...and from there, Wrestling as a whole, slowly crawled out of the hole it was in. From 1995 to mid 1996, Nitro's audience doubled. RAWs grew substantially over a year. Buyrates were rising. Now, there was a point in 1996 where the WWF's business dropped...if I recall correctly, there was a dog show or two that really fucked them good, and they took an entire month off from television...during these periods, WCW's ratings grew by similar numbers to what left the WWF audience and they just so happen to get hot with the nWo angle at the time...however, a by the end of 1997, the WWF would be able to ride the coattails to WCW's success as the demand for wrestling on the whole was growing (RAWs ratings were growing and buyrates were on the upswing). By the end of 1997, WCW was doing their best business...WWF was still struggling, but climbing out...they would get Mike Tyson to show up and the rest is history. But, at the time, more people were willing to spend money on wrestling, as seen by the Starrcade buyrate.

I don't disagree with most of this. What you fail to recognize, is that the rise of Austin is what largely propelled the WWF into the greatest five year period of success in history, and it came roughly 6-8 months after the company was in serious danger of either downsizing or going under. Yes, it was that serious in 1996 and even into mid 1997.

---

As for the rest...there are so many factors that led to the growth of wrestling...its silly. It was a snowball effect...it isn't undercutting Austin's importance, but it is highlighting how important every other factor was in the re-birth of American wrestling from a business perspective. Especially from a WWF perspective, they had a group of guys at the top - NOT JUST AUSTIN - that basically willed their way out of the hole and into national prominence. So, when you say "Austin was the biggest and by far the most important" its just not true and that is the peak of revisionist history.

Again, if the other guys were just as important as Austin, please explain why the WWF was in the fucking shitter less than a year before Austin took off. Explain why no WWF headliners were sniffing the top of a top ten biggest draw list pre 1997, and why when Austin emerged, he was not only #1 in the world, but also broke the all time record for number of big gates, and also lifted a trail of other WWF performers into the top 5 who weren't drawing at that level without him. Go ahead and jump through hoops to explain that away. I'm incredibly curious what kind of bullshit you can cook up for that.

As for the ratings decrease...the WWF's ratings were dropping well before the purchase of WCW and turning Stone Cold heel. In what would have been the WWF's boom period right before WrestleMania...ratings dipped to levels they hadn't seen in over 3 years. They were basically pulling low 5's and high 4's for seven months leading up to the purchase of WCW. WCW's ratings, obviously in the shitter. WrestleMania X-7 was a helluva show, but considering the ratings at the time, obvious got a boost in the buyrate area with the purchase of WCW.

As for the pay per views...Austin certain gets a ton of credit...but, if you look across the board, PPVs were up and the top guys were swapping the top spot over and over again. And, ratings didn't nose dive when he left...that's just an exaggeration. They were also down when he was back, too. So, your point really is invalid...the ebb and flow of business and the interest as a whole went down. before Austin even turned heel. X-7 popped a big rating because of the WCW merger...but otherwise, business stagnated after that, but had started to well beforehand.

It started to slip because people did not like the build to X-7, they did not want to root for The Rock, and the direction was clearly a failure as supported by history. That's why I gave you that list of reports from the Torch & Observer that were written at the time this was going on. They were teasing the Austin turn for months, people were rejecting it at nearly every show, and they stupidly did it anyway.

That is really a side discussion to the overall point though, so I won't belabor it.

My main issue here is you are trying really, really hard to discredit Austin, even though so many factors point to his drawing power taking things to the next level. '95-late '97 were awful and nearly killed the company, late '97-'02 were the best period they ever had, and post '02 things dropped for a half decade. Austin was pushed as the top guy from late '97 - '02. MY GOD WHAT A COINCIDENCE! lol, c'mon man.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

How is that accurate?

Austin became THE GUY at WM in 98 and remained THE GUY until he left to get neck surgery in late 99. He main evented all but 2 PPVs during that span.



Yes you had your supporting players but 90% or whatever the number is was built around Austin and Austin vs. McMahon

Exactly, larry keeps accusing me of not paying attention during this period, but he is not remembering the period very well at all.

In addition to headlining this golden era of ridiculously successful PPV's, this was the period that Austin was also headlining every house show and shattering decades old gate records.

Larry is making it seem like it was a potpourri of guys cycling in and out of main events, but that simply isnt the case. Austin was the CLEAR CUT #1 guy from WrestleMania 1998 until he had the surgery, he was largely responsible for drawing those houses and PPV's. He took shit to that next level.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

The idea of giving a guy credit for "drawing" is archaic territory talk...by the mid-90's, wrestling wasn't built the same way when it went national. You really are so out of touch with how the business developed. Warner, you self-admit for not even watching the Attitude Era...yet, you say you "followed it" but you constantly show your ass with how out of touch you were with the business at the time. Giving Austin credit for drawing shows with several "main events"...

This quote tells me all I need to know...

Larry is making it seem like it was a potpourri of guys cycling in and out of main events

Um...because it was. Between the tag matches, triple threats, fatal four ways...it was nothing but guys cycling in and out of the "main event" ... said loosely because giving a guy credit for drawing the gate when he simply came on last is silly out-of-touch territory carny speak ...

Also, why else was the number skewed? Because the WWE by that point was never running more shows...televised shows, PPVs, even house shows...by proxy guys 1-5 would be WWF guys on the "biggest draws" list... but alas, if you can't actually look into statistics and discover that *gasp* that most of them don't actually tell you anything accurate...this conversation is lost on you...because if you can't see how the landscape of wrestling had changed throughout to eventually lead to this point, just stop posting. Everything was trending upward. But, it was Austin that threw the whole industry on his back and just willed its way to monster pops everywhere. At this point your posts are akin to Hogan selling out 120,000 in the Pontiac Silverdome, brother. Fact is, the WWE was never running more shows, especially shows that would naturally draw a high gate (TV Tapings and PPVs)...and if you look at the attendance figures from year-to-year, the gate figures hold up with the increased interest to wrestling as a whole for PPVs. RAWs moved from the Grand Ballroom but was still regularly running shows in buildings that held well under 10K. By the middle of 1998, they were going into slightly bigger buildings that could hold over 10K.

 

[EmpireWF]

Um...because it was. Between the tag matches, triple threats, fatal four ways...it was nothing but guys cycling in and out of the "main event" ... said loosely because giving a guy credit for drawing the gate when he simply came on last is silly out-of-touch territory carny speak ...

???

There were 20 PPVs from when Austin was anointed at Wrestlemania 1998 to his final PPV in October 1999 before getting surgery and missing the next year.

18 of those PPVs had Austin as a wrestler in the main event. At least 12 of them were built behind the Austin/McMahon feud.

1 PPV featured Austin as guest referee in a title match between Kane & Taker. The angle going in was McMahon figured he was free of Austin but Stone Cold outsmarted him by double counting Kane & Taker.

1 PPV featured Austin as guest ref for the 6 pack challenge deal involving HHH, Foley, Bulldog, Kane, Big Show & Rock. The build to this was more McMahon trying to screw HHH out of the belt by putting Austin in the enforcer role.

What's the common theme? Stone Cold as THE GUY, the draw, the main event.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

This is getting embarrassing.

Larry you are the only person on the planet who thinks Austin wasnt a monster draw.

So in summary, business just so happened to pick up steam just as the Austin push picked up steam. And business just so happened to peak as Austin peaked. And PPV's just so happened to do better when Austin main evented them. And house show records were broken by total chance when Austin just so happened to be on top and in the main events. And the company just so happened to make the most money in its history with Austin on top. And every one of these measurable things trended back downward after they botched Austin's heel turn and he retired, but that was a wacky coincidence, too.

All of that makes a ton of sense. I'll buy it.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Um...because it was. Between the tag matches, triple threats, fatal four ways...it was nothing but guys cycling in and out of the "main event" ... said loosely because giving a guy credit for drawing the gate when he simply came on last is silly out-of-touch territory carny speak ...

Oh boy.

There was no cycling. Austin main evented practically every night. The reason? He was the biggest draw in the company.

I think you don't understand the basics of how wrestling is promoted. It's not about "going on last". It's about being in the strongest pushed match on a given show.

During Hogan's heyday, he headlined for years and his match went on before intermission. He still gets credit for the house, because he was headliner, he was the main event, he was the draw. Nobody chalked up his sellouts to Junkyard Dog because Dog went on last while Hogan was flying to the next city.

Austin was the biggest star in the headline angles and the most pushed performer. He was the headliner, he was the main event. It's mind boggling that I need to explain this to you. The only people cycled in and out were his foils, which is why you see four WWF guys ranked #2-#5 on that 1998 list of top draws! It was people Austin worked with on top! Doh!

Also, why else was the number skewed? Because the WWE by that point was never running more shows...televised shows, PPVs, even house shows...by proxy guys 1-5 would be WWF guys on the "biggest draws" list... but alas, if you can't actually look into statistics and discover that *gasp* that most of them don't actually tell you anything accurate...this conversation is lost on you...because if you can't see how the landscape of wrestling had changed throughout to eventually lead to this point, just stop posting.

Wrong. WWE was running far more shows a decade earlier. Now you are just making things up.

Here is something that chart tells me that is 100% accurate: To that point in history, Steve Austin headlined more 10,000+ gates in a single year than anybody in wrestling history. Nothing skewed about that, brother.

He drew more 10,000k houses in 1998 than THE ENTIRE COMPANY DREW in 1996 + 1997 combined. lol. You know, with that same potpourri of stars you seem to think carried Austin (at least in 1997, 1996 was a different crew of guys like Hart & Michaels).

Everything was trending upward. But, it was Austin that threw the whole industry on his back and just willed its way to monster pops everywhere. At this point your posts are akin to Hogan selling out 120,000 in the Pontiac Silverdome, brother. Fact is, the WWE was never running more shows, especially shows that would naturally draw a high gate (TV Tapings and PPVs)...

Yes, everything was trending upward...in WCW. WWF was on its death bed a few months before the Austin push. Taking out loans to pay Tyson, laying off office staff, seriously considering scaling back to just the east coast. When did things start to trend upward in WWF? When Austin started climbing the card. It's plain as day. And it exploded when they finally ran with him all the way at WrestleMania.

and if you look at the attendance figures from year-to-year, the gate figures hold up with the increased interest to wrestling as a whole for PPVs. RAWs moved from the Grand Ballroom but was still regularly running shows in buildings that held well under 10K. By the middle of 1998, they were going into slightly bigger buildings that could hold over 10K.

Do you not even see the irony here? Why do you think they moved RAW into bigger buildings? Because they had a guy who could fill them lol. You think they just randomly decided to start running RAW in arenas in 1998? Quick, somebody tell Gabe Sapolsky to run MSG! You run the buildings you think you can fill. Austin filled bigger buildings for TV. And if not for the RAW stage, they would have drawn even bigger gates.

Why do you think interest in wrestling increased? Because a hot new star captured people's attention.

You think more people were buying WWF PPV because WCW was hot? Makes sense. Why didn't it work that way in 1996 or the first half of 1997, when WCW was red hot and NOBODY was buying WWF PPV? Had nothing to do with overall wrestling popularity, and everything to do with a hot new draw in their own company catching fire. And then later, The Rock blowing up, too. WWE has been searching for that dynamic ever since, ffs.

 

[Bane]

was really hoping to see brock lesner be on punks team and the rock on foleys...

 

[JimLeavy59]

was really hoping to see brock lesner be on punks team and the rock on foleys...

But we got Ryback lol.

 

[EmpireWF]

They're holding Brock for HHH and Rock won't be back until January.

 

[SuperKevin]

The overall card for Survivor Series is going to be weak with no WWE, Intercontinental, or Tag Title matches on the card.