Wrestling Forum banner

Do Wrestlers Draw, Or Does the WWE Brand Draw?

  • Wrestlers Draw

    Votes: 251 39.5%
  • WWE Brand draws

    Votes: 384 60.5%
Status
Not open for further replies.

**The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

987K views 9K replies 852 participants last post by  Starbuck 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
For a list of the weekly rating dating back to January, please click here:

http://www.gerweck.net/tv-ratings/2012-tv-ratings/

RATINGS BREAKDOWN FOR THIS WEEKS RAW 4/9

Raw on 4/9 did a 3.10 rating and 4.29 million viewers. The show was third for the night on cable. The show did a 2.4 in Males 12-17, 2.7 in Males 18-49, 1.0 in Girls 12-17 and 1.1 in Women 18-49 with a 69.3% male skew. It was down 21% from the 5.46 million viewers of the week after Mania show last year, and last year there was no bombshell along the lines of the Brock Lesnar return on the night after Mania show.

In the segment-by-segment, Brodus Clay & Santino Marella vs. Dolph Ziggler & Jack Swagger lost 99,000 viewers.

Backstage with Laurinaitis with Miz an Cena, Marella looking for the Three Stooges and R-Truth vs. Cody Rhodes gained 255,000 viewers.

Lord Tensai vs. Yoshi Tatsu lost 415,000 viewers.

The mic work between C.M. Punk and Chris Jericho in the top of the hour segment gained 379,000 viewers to a 3.19.

Punk vs. Henry and the post-match with Jericho pouring beer all over Punk, as well as the quick Del Rio vs. Ryder match lost 169,000 viewers.

The Three Stooges in-ring segment lost 240,000 viewers and was the low point of the show at 2.90.

The Brock Lesnar interview gained 423,000 viewers.

And the Cena vs. Otunga match with Lesnar run-in gained 301,000 viewers, which is a very weak overrun number, finishing at 3.42.
 
#760 · (Edited)
Holy Crap The 2 quarters with the most viewers were both segments Punk was in :punk

Sidenote: yes I do know the beginning of the show and the final quater+overrn are 2 of the highest rated spots no matter what. But It definitely has been pretty uneventful in this thread considerring quarters were posted.


Hopefully from this and SD's current ratings the WWE is figuring out that if you have good storylines (plural), some actual character development, and some decent booking people will actually tune in to their shows.
 
#769 ·
So I'm to understand that because a few people had excessively high hopes for CM Punk, there are posters on this forum that have made it their mission over the past couple of months to harp on about how CM Punk doesn't "bring the ratings", in an effort to "get even"?

Good job.

:Cornette
 
#770 ·
So I'm to understand that because a few people had excessively high hopes for CM Punk, there are posters on this forum that have made it their mission over the past couple of months to harp on about how CM Punk doesn't "bring the ratings", in an effort to "get even"?

Good job.

:Cornette
A couple of months? Try since August. Why it's such a big deal is beyond me because it shouldn't dictate what you think of someone, but hell, who am I to think logically?
 
#776 · (Edited)
Discussing ratings isn't really the problem... it's when posts are made like:

"Punk sucks he can't draw."

or

"Ryder's a fucking failure."

or even the other way around when that's all that's in the post. This thread isn't about Punk, Cena, Kane, Rock, HHH, or any of those guys, it's about RAW and the ratings. That should be the primary discussion, not whether one person is a draw or not.

I'm fine with it being a side discussion, mentioned in posts that have to do with the overall ratings, etc., but when the majority of posts in this thread probably have to do with whether one guy is a draw or not, especially since ratings is only one part of being a draw, it gets kinda annoying to come here and try and discuss RAW' ratings when you get side-tracked by the Punk stuff.

I wish we'd see more posts in this thread like Starbuck's after the quarterly comes out. He does discuss based on the ratings a little bit if certain guys draw or not, but it's primarily about how well the whole show did.

Granted I do know there are SOME people who do come in here occasionally and try to dispel the ratings importance, while others try to over-blow it based on a number of factors.

Edit: And there's not a little bias on both sides, there's a BIG bias on both sides for and against Punk. That's why these threads get as "heated" as they do.
 
#780 ·
Good numbers this week. Jericho losing viewers is a concern but I think everyone knows it was just more of him doing nothing so no need to watch.

Obviously this isn't his new character and at the Rumble he'll probally make his point and he can move on from the ratings killer.

If you're the WWE you have to like that Punk Lauranitis and Kane Ryder hit acceptable levels. Those are your 2 premiere storylines right now.
 
#781 · (Edited)
I also think that a lot of 'hate' can be contributed to some CM Punk marks. I remembered a lot of treats during the summer saying that CM Punk is the next G.O.A.T, next Austin, bigger then The Rock, outdraws The Rock, new top guy, No1 face of the company, will make wrestling interesting again, save WWE, etc.... and now that the ratings aren't so good some people are gonna have some pay back. That's why the ratings tread where so huge (and bad) the last couple of months and why we have one ratings tread right now.
And threads like Attitude Era is overrated, Wm 17 overrated, Cm punk is funny , Cm punk brought me back to wrestling(How since you never left) ...... Just helping on some more points;)
 
#783 ·
Wm 17 is certainly not overrated

but tbh the AE is
i started watching when the AE started but yeah there were lots of embarrassing moments sure i loved them back then
was a kid and i do think they are still funny but yeah not as great as everyone here thinks of them
 
#786 · (Edited)
Agreed with the above posts about AE being overrated. Wrestling was absolute sht. I mean every match was punch and kick, from start to finish. I did not see not even AT LEAST ONE wrestling hold back then, literally. Every finisher was punch or kick. The promos and segments were terrible and boring. Crowd was always dead. Storylines were horrible and it made people sleep. Every characters were too similar which made them look too generic and boring, I mean almost everyone was copy and paste of each other. Only Rock really had at least a decent mic skills, the rest sucked donkey balls esp Austin, Vince, HHH, Foley, Taker, Angle and Jericho.

PG Era >>>>>>>> Attitude Era
 
#789 ·
AE was better in every aspect, AE is also 2000-2001, in a few months you got more memorable matches than all this mediocre era combined. + At that time, wrestling matches were not slow paced, boring channel changers with green uncharismatic rookies. In Jericho's debut promo he said everything the AE wasn't in a sarcastic way just to get heat, check this promo and you got the "PG era" or whatever you want to call it, for real. The greatest period in the history of the wrestling business by the fans and the company.
 
#796 ·
I don't normally agree with this guy, but this says it all. If the AE was only 1998-1999, you may have a point with the whole wrestling being better in today's era then back then, but because the AE also includes 2000 and 2001, with 2000 being one of the best years if not the best year in WWE history, and the wrestling being fantastic both years, that beats out today's era. It beats out the Ruthless Aggression Era (which I'd say gets overrated on here occasionally), and it overall was the most successful era for a reason.

It wasn't perfect, and not everything on the show back then was excellent (there were things... like the whole hand-birth shit, that were pretty fucking bad), but not anywhere near as much was bad as it is today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chrome
#793 ·
King_Kool-Aid™;10945273 said:
Yeah and i rather watch Triple H and Mankind have a mediocre but entertaining match than watch Ziggler and Daniel Bryan put on a 5 star classic.
HHH/Foley was a 5* classic, Ziggler put on maybe 2 great matches in his career and Bryan is a mediocre WWE wrestler with a boring style that can't get a reaction in his matches to save his life. So you can stay with "IFs", HHH/Foley really happened and was a better overall program than everything in this era.
 
#800 ·
January 4, 1999 5.7
January 11, 1999 5.5
January 18, 1999 5.6
January 25, 1999 5.5
February 1, 1999 5.9
February 8, 1999 Not On
February 15, 1999 5.9
February 22, 1999 5.5
February 29, 1999 6.3
March 8, 1999 6.4
March 15, 1999 5.8
March 22, 1999 6.4
March 29, 1999 6.5
April 5, 1999 5.8
April 12, 1999 6.3
April 19, 1999 6.1
April 26, 1999 6.0
May 3, 1999 6.4
May 10, 1999 8.1
May 17, 1999 6.4
May 24, 1999 7.2
June 7, 1999 6.7
June 14, 1999 6.7
June 21, 1999 6.0
June 28, 1999 6.8
July 5, 1999 6.2
July 12, 1999 5.97
July 19, 1999 6.3
July 26, 1999 7.1
August 2, 1999 5.9
August 9, 1999 6.4
August 16, 1999 6.6
August 23, 1999 5.9
August 30, 1999 4.2
September 6, 1999 4.4
September 13, 1999 6.0
September 20, 1999 6.1
September 27, 1999 6.8
October 4, 1999 5.9
October 11, 1999 6.1
October 18, 1999 5.4
October 25, 1999 5.6
November 1, 1999 5.9
November 8, 1999 5.4
November 15, 1999 6.3
November 22, 1999 5.5
November 29, 1999 6.5
December 6, 1999 6.0
December 13, 1999 6.1
December 20, 1999 5.8
December 27, 1999 5.8
Compare AE ratings with your Pg Era or Realty Era or Whatever the hell it is.

you get the idea which one is OVERRATED
 
#801 ·
^Looking at those dates, 2010 lines up to the exact same dates for Raw... anyone have those ratings for comparisons and lols? :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top