Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)
Oh and to the shmuck saying Taker isn't as big a draw as Cena or that Rock has always been the bigger draw and star...have you, like, ever watched a fucking wrestling show in your life? Rock was fantastically popular, of that there is no doubt, but back from late 1997 until the end of 1999, you could not, repeat, could not TOUCH Steve Austin. Its preposterous to even think that anyone during that period could eclipse him, because they just didn't. The Attitude Era is by in large the most profitable period the WWF has ever had, and Steve Austin was the living embodiment of everything that Attitude was.
As for Taker, the guy was a star for 12 years before John Cena even debuted as a rookie in the Fed. He's one of the most recognizable characters in pro wrestling history and one of the few that could take a gimmick and make it work for this long. He's had so many classic matches that its hard to keep count. The thing about Taker is that he was a dominant presence through numerous different eras. He was one of many extremely strong characters. Nowadays, the only reason Cena stands out is because what else is there around him, besides a handful of guys? I will guaran-fucking-tee you that were this 1998, Cena would be at BEST challenging for the European title against the likes of D'Lo Brown and X-Pac (who would still get way more of a pop than he would) and nowhere near the IC, let alone main event, picture. He can get the fuck out of here with his 10 meaningless title reigns of today, where he has TWO heavyweight championships he can win.
To say Undertaker isn't as big a draw as Cena or that Rock has always been a bigger draw than Stone Cold clearly indicates that you're highly delusional, in extreme denial, a troll, or mentally retarded. In whichever of these 4 cases that might apply, my response will always be the same-please fuck off and leave.
"The taller the chefs hat the greater the chef.... FOOLS .... Who said I was a chef?!"