its not always about winning
Goldberg in 1998 never won the ratings after he won the title, so was he a failure?
But he was actually getting higher ratings than Hogan did in 1997 when WCW was on top.
It should never be about ratings with the fans, in regards to having an opinion. But since people want to keep using ratings, I will keep shooting the argument down.
And do your history before you post. WCW won in the ratings 6 times with Goldberg as champion. But in those 6 times that they won in the ratings, only twice did they draw over a 5. The night after Halloween Havoc was the last time WCW won in the ratings with Goldberg as champion, as after then, WCW's highest rating was nearly identical to their lowest rating with Sting as champion months prior.
I'm not saying Bret was a failure, I'm saying that it's wrong when people say HBK or Diesel were horrible champions based on ratings, when RAW had higher ratings with either of them as champion than with Bret as champion.
All I'm saying is ratings don't mean shit in determining who was better or worse as champion. But if they did, Bret, Diesel or HBK are far from the worse. Sid was the only WWE Champion during the Monday Night War that saw WWE never draw more than a 2.5 during his reign.
It just kills me when people say HBK as before Austin won the title, HBK was the only champion that saw WWE draw a 4.0 or higher in the rating, head to head with Nitro.