**The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here) - Page 634 - Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Debate League, Wrestling Videos, Women of Wrestling Forums

View Poll Results: Do Wrestlers Draw, Or Does the WWE Brand Draw?

Wrestlers Draw 251 39.53%
WWE Brand draws 384 60.47%
Voters: 635. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

Old 09-29-2012, 11:02 PM   #6331 (permalink)
Getting ignored by SCOTT STEINER
 
Tnmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 586
Tnmore is an after thoughtTnmore is an after thought
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sandrone View Post
As I said, the reign shouldn't have happened (at least at that point without more building up of Punk) but he didn't exactly look strong against Batista from what I recall, and once again that has to do with booking. He looked like a weak champ because he was booked as a weak champ. Going against Batista at the time while not bad, didn't do Punk any favors either.
He's not going to look strong against Batista who was the second biggest babyface behind Cena, especially not with his looks. No other superstar is going to look strong against batista unless its someone bigger than him, Cena or legends like HHH/Taker. Working with batista is big rub, you dont need to win or booked dominantly to get that.


Quote:
While against Jeff Hardy, he got great exposure. But not all exposure is good. He was essentially Taker's whipping boy for a couple of months, and even though Taker is a legend and it's never bad to lose to him, it's terrible to look as bad as Punk did to Taker to anyone. Once again gets exposure, but it's not exactly good when you're booked to look like you don't belong in the main event. Like I said this is what I think really hurt Punk's image in the eyes of the casual, and the worst part is if the reports are true, Punk did it to himself.

Once again, He retired Jeff freaking hardy, he WON that MAIN EVENT feud. Taker took the title off him but the win over Jeff hardy gave punk big credibility.

Quote:
But once again, him and his groups were made to look like chumps. Bad exposure is bad. It hurts his image to see time and time again that he fails in his feuds and it makes it harder for the casuals to get behind him.
There is no such thing as bad exposure when working against Top stars, unless its a repulsive storyline/angles like Katie Vick. Being the leader of the stable, dominating RAW/SD show as top heel, being a threat to the top babyfaces? This is bad exposure to you? If anything he was presented as an equal to those top faces more than he deserved.

Again, you just fail to see the primary push given to him, working against top guys, dominating them as heels etc.. which most superstars on the roster would kill for.

Quote:
He's the WWE Champion. It devalues the title when it's never the main event despite the fact that it's supposedly the most prestigious prize in the business, and hurts Punk's reign (and image once again) that he's constantly playing second-fiddle to Cena, even when he has the title. So even if it's not the key drawing point, if it's promoted on Raw as the main event as it should be, at the very least the title credibility and reign is preserved to some extent. Casuals don't really know who draws and who doesn't... at least as far as I know. It's not something they think about.
Casuals know who THEY bought the ppv for, who they pay money for and trust me its not Punk. Cena main evented because they paid to see him. No point in having the guy main event when he's mid card act in reality. He's played second to Cena because thats what he really was.

If the credibility of the WWE title was an issue, then they should have taken the title off him. Not falsely book the mid card act as a main event attraction.

Quote:
And the other thing is when I say for Punk to main event, I don't necessarily mean him just being the last match on the PPV, but to week in and week out be the focus of the show.
He has been the focus of the show for a very long time now, you dont even realize it. Results have been the same in terms of ratings, with Cena and the mega-stars still holding the fort because otherwise we wouldnt be having this discussions at all.


Quote:
But Punk has never been given a shot to prove he could consistently hold the numbers together for the show and to prove that number was just an odd occurrence.
He was, before and after TLC PPV for two months when the main event and overrun bombed huge, like never seen before and WWE obviously panicked and took him off the main events. Besides, Summer of punk 2011 was punk's peak, how did that work out for ratings?

Like Cena said in his promo, there is no conspiracy here. Punk lacks "it", he's unable to connect with masses and WWE was left with no other choice.

Quote:
Instead he's a very little or non-factor as a mid-card WWE Champion while Cena is treated as the top prize in the company.
Thats because Cena is the top prize currently who is full time. As noted above, Summer of punk failed to increase anything other than one ppv by 20,000 extra buys.

Quote:
He can never prove his worth if not given the chance, and only giving him a one-off shot every few months isn't giving him a chance.
He was, time after time through years to prove himself. If you stopped looking for these excuses, maybe you'd notice it.


Quote:
First, it's not needing every single push to be successful, it's needing a few of them. He's looked weak time and time again after a short time of looking like a main eventer. No top draw got over by having their pushes constantly derailed. Hogan, Austin, Rock, Taker, Lesnar, HHH, Cena, etc. All almost always were booked to succeed in their feuds and never made to look like chumps as WWE Champion, even as heels. Imagine if Austin had tapped out to Bret at WM13 and then stopped being Austin 3:16. No way Austin/McMahon would've been as successful. Imagine Rock never leading the Nation. Imagine Evolution getting destroyed by Benoit in 04 and Orton and Batista becoming nothing. Imagine HHH losing the title to Foley at the RR and the WM ME that year being Rock vs. Foley. How about during HHH's 9 month reign, not only does he get overshadowed by Rock/Austin and Rock/Goldberg, but then Goldberg's feuds overshadow HHH's and HHH looks like a mid-card act in comparison, along with the title? Or how about JBL defeating Cena at WM21 and Cena getting traded to Raw before he could win the title? Or how about winning the title, but then losing in the I QUIT match to JBL? Lastly, what about Taker beating Lesnar in the cell at NM?

And you contradicted there yourself. Austin through 1996/1997 didnt receive the mega push that he did in 1998. Most of 96 through mid 97 was weak stuff. The Rock received some of the worst bullshit booking when he was put against Billy gunn over the tag title despite the insane overness, Benoit/Goldberg/Micheals/Austin have all destroyed Evolution at one point and multiple times in that period. Austin always made them look like chumps even though he was only a authority figure and not a wrestler. Triple H until dec 1999, is quite possibly the weakest booked top heel in history, not only was he constantly overshadowed by corporate ministry but also lost his no.1 contender's spot to a woman in Chyna. Always got his ass whipped at the highest level by Austin that entire year even as the WWF Champion. In 2003, HHH similar to punk was overshadowed by Rock/Austin, Brock/Angle and even Vince/Hogan. Cena, again similar to punk received a great main event push only on the B-show, as did Lesnar for the most part. AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM DREW despite the set backs.


Quote:
You don't need the "IT" factor to be a big draw. You need the "IT" factor to be the biggest superstar of all time. Punk would've never been that, but he could've been big draw by now. But they fuck up his heel run, and then they fuck up his face run. Now he's back to heel trying that again, but it's only a matter of time before that's fucked up. I don't believe HHH had the "IT" factor, but he had proper booking, character development, and excellently written storylines. I'd say if he did have the "IT" factor, he could've very well been the biggest star of all time. But that's just me.
Absolutely laughable post. You have no clue what "it" means. Its the ability to connect with fans where they are willing to pay money to see you perform, buy PPVs on your name alone, tune in when you're on their TV screen. Ability to draw, ability to grab someone’s attention, to possess the charisma, charm, skills and a look to back the character is "IT Factor". By your logic, the only one's who had it are Rock, Hogan, Austin, ultimate warrior and Goldberg. According to you, The Undertaker never had "It" because he was never the biggest, never was a top guy in the company, almost never lost any feud, has the most match wins in WWE history even more than John Cena, plus always a guaranteed wrestlemania win to protect him. Even in the 90s and even as a heel he hardly lost to anyone other than Austin and Bret. But it would be completely idiotic on my part to claim The Undertaker didnt have "It" when he's become one of the biggest legends. With that ridiculous statement "Biggest superstar of all time", what you're trying to say is Randy Savage never had "it" or Ric Flair never had "It" or Sting, Nash etc. To say HHH didnt have "IT" is stupid especially considering his 2002 peak, when he was bumping ratings and buyrates huge along with Hogan, as a babyface upon his return.


Quote:
Are these excuses? I prefer to think of them as reasons. Are they valid reasons? Absolutely. Fact is none of his runs were booked properly all the way through. Because of that all those championships. accolades and guys he worked with in the past were all for naught. It's exactly why a poorly executed push can destroy someone. Punk's been dealing with it for the majority of his career. He's dealt with it for the past year and his title run, his face run, and his drawing power have suffered because of it.
No, they are reasons why many of his pushes didnt end well with the right pay-off but they become excuses when used as such, to cover up for his lack of drawing ability.

I stand by what I said few pages back, Anyone else with the same 6 yr push would have been a solid reliable draw for WWE by now.
__________________

Last edited by Tnmore : 09-29-2012 at 11:13 PM.
Tnmore is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 09-29-2012, 11:32 PM   #6332 (permalink)
Getting ignored by SCOTT STEINER
 
Tnmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 586
Tnmore is an after thoughtTnmore is an after thought
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Got this off PVo board wrestling section, Dave Meltzer on Punk's peak

Quote:
Punk, for the 7/17 match with Cena, did something Tanahashi never did, which was make a big difference at the box office. While PPV numbers in a sense for Money in the bank were disappointing, they were still a big increase over the prior year, and punk clearly was the difference maker. However, given Tanahashi was the winner by traditional long-time world champion on top having great matches standards. What almost surely cost punk the first is that past Money in the bank one show, there was no evidence he was a difference maker. House shows stayed the same, PPV for the most part was down from the prior year when he was on top, including Summerslam and other shows he headlined.

What seemingly was special that they had with him in July. But there is no evidence past anecdotal that it was past the internet audience. There absolutely was a few weeks where punk fueled an increase in our business, but that's only a niche and it was only a few weeks. On a big-time basis, such as WWE web site or business, past the PPV and August merch sales, there's really no evidence of anything.
With "Our business", Meltzer is referring to F4W/Observer Website traffic.
__________________

Last edited by Tnmore : 09-29-2012 at 11:35 PM.
Tnmore is offline  
Old 09-30-2012, 12:05 AM   #6333 (permalink)
Inappropriately tinkly music.
 
Mister Hands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sprachgefuhlland
Posts: 7,021
Mister Hands Mister Hands Mister Hands Mister Hands Mister Hands Mister Hands Mister Hands Mister Hands Mister Hands Mister Hands Mister Hands
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

I don't think it can really be considered "looking for excuses" to say WWE botched Punk's rise. But not just Punk's: they've done it with everyone since Cena and Batista. That's why so many hopes were pinned on Punk in the first place - it seemed to be happening not just despite the WWE machine's ineptitude, but as a direct response to it.
__________________


Mister Hands is offline  
Old 09-30-2012, 02:32 AM   #6334 (permalink)
Moron
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,681
The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

WWE were willing to give refunds last weekend's house shows because Cena wasn't on the card anymore.
The-Rock-Says is offline  
Old 09-30-2012, 05:01 AM   #6335 (permalink)
Ho!
 
#BadNewsSanta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 14,251
#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Not going to respond to everything (in depth):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tnmore View Post

There is no such thing as bad exposure when working against Top stars, unless its a repulsive storyline/angles like Katie Vick. Being the leader of the stable, dominating RAW/SD show as top heel, being a threat to the top babyfaces? This is bad exposure to you? If anything he was presented as an equal to those top faces more than he deserved.

Again, you just fail to see the primary push given to him, working against top guys, dominating them as heels etc.. which most superstars on the roster would kill for.
But he didn't get to dominate shows as the top heel... which is exactly my point and makes this little blurb ridiculous.


Quote:
Casuals know who THEY bought the ppv for, who they pay money for and trust me its not Punk. Cena main evented because they paid to see him. No point in having the guy main event when he's mid card act in reality. He's played second to Cena because thats what he really was.

If the credibility of the WWE title was an issue, then they should have taken the title off him. Not falsely book the mid card act as a main event attraction.
No. Casuals know what they, the individual paid for, but they don't know what everyone else does and unless they're the odd casual who goes online and looks at ratings and stuff but doesn't go completely into smarkville, then they really don't have a clue who draws besides who they like. Not to mention a lot of the casuals are kids nowadays.


Quote:
He has been the focus of the show for a very long time now, you dont even realize it. Results have been the same in terms of ratings, with Cena and the mega-stars still holding the fort because otherwise we wouldnt be having this discussions at all.
no, he hasn't.


Quote:
He was, before and after TLC PPV for two months when the main event and overrun bombed huge, like never seen before and WWE obviously panicked and took him off the main events. Besides, Summer of punk 2011 was punk's peak, how did that work out for ratings?
Punk was the main event for like a week or two leading into TLC. I need to see breakdowns though before I can really comment on how well he did.

He always did well in that time period (Summer) in the breakdowns aside from an odd occurrence. The problem is he was ALWAYS with a top guy and never given a chance to prove himself at that time on a consistent basis.

Quote:
And you contradicted there yourself. Austin through 1996/1997 didnt receive the mega push that he did in 1998. Most of 96 through mid 97 was weak stuff. The Rock received some of the worst bullshit booking when he was put against Billy gunn over the tag title despite the insane overness, Benoit/Goldberg/Micheals/Austin have all destroyed Evolution at one point and multiple times in that period. Austin always made them look like chumps even though he was only a authority figure and not a wrestler. Triple H until dec 1999, is quite possibly the weakest booked top heel in history, not only was he constantly overshadowed by corporate ministry but also lost his no.1 contender's spot to a woman in Chyna. Always got his ass whipped at the highest level by Austin that entire year even as the WWF Champion. In 2003, HHH similar to punk was overshadowed by Rock/Austin, Brock/Angle and even Vince/Hogan. Cena, again similar to punk received a great main event push only on the B-show, as did Lesnar for the most part. AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM DREW despite the set backs.
With Austin, perhaps that's true, but he had the "It" factor where people would pay to see him, and he was still booked strong and correctly throughout. Same with Rock, though I already said Rock could be the exception. Evolution was never destroyed by those men, but they got occasionally one-uped on. They were still booked as the dominant group in WWE. I agree HHH in 1999 wasn't booked greatly, but as I said it's the feud with Foley is what made him and without that, he wouldn't be where he is today. 2003, he was overshadowed by Rock/Austin, and Vince/Hogan but those were for only 2-3 months in the year. Brock/Angle was on a different show. So really, not a good example. He was booked as the top guy as a heel, though Lesnar was above him. Don't compare Punk to Cena and Lesnar. It's embarrassing. Cena received a push against Lesnar and lost, but looked strong. He then got pushed similarly to how he is now in 2004 in the US Title division, became popular with his gimmick, and after he won the title was booked in the main event of Raw constantly once drafted and always won every match. You want to compare Sheamus to Cena? Go ahead, but Punk? No. I'm not even going to get into how different Punk and Lesnar are.



Quote:
Absolutely laughable post. You have no clue what "it" means. Its the ability to connect with fans where they are willing to pay money to see you perform, buy PPVs on your name alone, tune in when you're on their TV screen. Ability to draw, ability to grab someone’s attention, to possess the charisma, charm, skills and a look to back the character is "IT Factor". By your logic, the only one's who had it are Rock, Hogan, Austin, ultimate warrior and Goldberg. According to you, The Undertaker never had "It" because he was never the biggest, never was a top guy in the company, almost never lost any feud, has the most match wins in WWE history even more than John Cena, plus always a guaranteed wrestlemania win to protect him. Even in the 90s and even as a heel he hardly lost to anyone other than Austin and Bret. But it would be completely idiotic on my part to claim The Undertaker didnt have "It" when he's become one of the biggest legends. With that ridiculous statement "Biggest superstar of all time", what you're trying to say is Randy Savage never had "it" or Ric Flair never had "It" or Sting, Nash etc. To say HHH didnt have "IT" is stupid especially considering his 2002 peak, when he was bumping ratings and buyrates huge along with Hogan, as a babyface upon his return.
The "It" factor is subjective in meaning. I interpret as an aura that attracts you to watch them no matter what. It's actually for the most part of what you say, but the thing is, when you say sell the PPV on their name alone, by what standards? Because Cena has been selling PPV's on his name alone for the last few years for the most part and the PPV's are all lower than that they used to be. I mean Punk can sell a PPV on his name alone, it just won't do as well. If you mean selling to where you make a profit on a PPV, I see no reason Punk can't do that or any indication he can't. There's a certain standard towards selling the PPV on their own that the "It" factor guys have. And there only are a handful. I'm not too familiar with how Savage was perceived back in his hayday, but even if he did have the "It" factor, Hogan was simply bigger and Savage would never remain over him. Punk is actually kind of in the same position with Cena, though Punk is nowhere near Savage and Cena is nowhere near Hogan. Same thing with Flair, though Flair was the main man of a successful company, was he not? Can't say I remember too much with Sting, but I suppose he had to have it for never being in WWE and being a top guy in WCW at it's peak. All these guys could've been the biggest superstar of all time depending on how they were pushed. At the end of the day, Hogan's the one who's known as the biggest of all time. Nash? Absolutely not. Who's the guy people say Punk's reign is the worst since in the ratings? Precisely. And for Taker, he's an odd case. His gimmick works in two ways, because while he's pushed well and it's a huge attraction and draw on a show, it's not something you can build the company off of. He has a deformed (for lack of better term) "It" factor because he's not at his strongest as the center of the show, but as a side-attraction/co-lead star? He's possibly the biggest ever (and Rock/Austin don't count in the mold).

Right now for me, the only men that have the "It" factor for sure are Hogan, Rock, Austin, and Flair. Taker to some extent as well, and guys like Savage and Sting possibly have it as well, but I can't really comment.


Quote:

No, they are reasons why many of his pushes didnt end well with the right pay-off but they become excuses when used as such, to cover up for his lack of drawing ability.

I stand by what I said few pages back, Anyone else with the same 6 yr push would have been a solid reliable draw for WWE by now.
And because those pushes fell flat, so did his starpower. Punk doesn't have the "It" factor and I never said he did. But that's why he needs not only great feuds, but a successful ending to those feuds in his favor to be a big star. He's not someone who has no potential, but he's not naturally gifted in charisma to be able to bounce back from nothingness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tnmore View Post
Got this off PVo board wrestling section, Dave Meltzer on Punk's peak



With "Our business", Meltzer is referring to F4W/Observer Website traffic.
And amazingly enough, he impacted business when he was being booked correctly those first few weeks going into MITB. But then everything goes downhill besides merchandise sales, which if I'm not mistaken falls as well eventually. He comes back too soon, loses his title to Del Rio, goes into a feud with Nash which leads to nothing. Then has a feud with HHH that leads to him losing and apologizing for everything and then becoming nothing more than an alternative to Cena who's very identical to Cena. Once again, bad booking costs Punk.
__________________
I've got some bad news...


Last edited by #BadNewsSanta : 09-30-2012 at 05:56 AM.
#BadNewsSanta is offline  
Old 09-30-2012, 06:03 AM   #6336 (permalink)
Best For Business
 
Starbuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,874
Starbuck is new to the CHATBOX CREWStarbuck is new to the CHATBOX CREWStarbuck is new to the CHATBOX CREWStarbuck is new to the CHATBOX CREWStarbuck is new to the CHATBOX CREWStarbuck is new to the CHATBOX CREWStarbuck is new to the CHATBOX CREWStarbuck is new to the CHATBOX CREWStarbuck is new to the CHATBOX CREWStarbuck is new to the CHATBOX CREWStarbuck is new to the CHATBOX CREW
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kokepepsi View Post
lol at the idea that HHH not showing up at a house show would result in people asking for refunds.
PFFFFFFfff

What were the buys for the Kevin Nash vs HHH Sledge Hammer on a string ladder match?
Quote:
WWE Smackdown & ECW House Show Results - 8/2/08
Location: Johnson City, Tennessee

Alicia Fleming sent this report in:

Show started off by the Ring Announcer saying that Triple H would not be here that if you wanted a refund you could get it and that we could vote via text message for what match we wanted between the Main event Jeff Hardy Vs Umaga.
Quote:
Before the first match even started, it was announced that due to injuries he received at the Royal Rumble, Jeff Hardy would not be present. Lots of boos. They said that anyone who wanted a refund had until the end of the first match. I didn’t see anyone leave. Some of that might be they announced that the Main Event would be a triple threat match for the WWE Title between Edge, Vladimir Kozlov, and Triple H.
Quote:
Due to John Cena being pulled from last night's WWE House Show in White Plains due to injury fans were refunded if they asked by the second match.
Quote:
The show started a little disappointing with the announcement of no Undertaker. We were given until the end of the first match to get a refund if we wanted. Come on though lets face it, we are in Cheyenne WY and this is the biggest thing to happen here in a long time. No one left.
Don't see why it's so hard to believe tbh. People paying money to see the top guys/draws are offered refunds if they don't appear. Makes sense.

Last edited by Starbuck : 09-30-2012 at 06:06 AM.
Starbuck is offline  
Old 09-30-2012, 06:06 AM   #6337 (permalink)
Ho!
 
#BadNewsSanta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 14,251
#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starbuck View Post
Quote:
Before the first match even started, it was announced that due to injuries he received at the Royal Rumble, Jeff Hardy would not be present. Lots of boos. They said that anyone who wanted a refund had until the end of the first match. I didnít see anyone leave. Some of that might be they announced that the Main Event would be a triple threat match for the WWE Title between Edge, Vladimir Kozlov, and Triple H.
KOZLOV THE DRAW!
__________________
I've got some bad news...

#BadNewsSanta is offline  
Old 09-30-2012, 06:30 AM   #6338 (permalink)
Moron
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,681
The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Quote:
After John Cena Vs Kane match, people started to leave. From live reports people say a lot of people left after Cena's match and the main event was still to come. Which was CM Punk Vs Ziggler.
*Whistles on past*
The-Rock-Says is offline  
Old 09-30-2012, 06:34 AM   #6339 (permalink)
Ho!
 
#BadNewsSanta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 14,251
#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading#BadNewsSanta has posts worth reading
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Fucking Ziggler's such an anti-draw people left early. No wonder he's not world champ yet.
__________________
I've got some bad news...

#BadNewsSanta is offline  
Old 09-30-2012, 06:37 AM   #6340 (permalink)
Moron
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,681
The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says The-Rock-Says
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Quote:
From the live reports we got from people, they say people didn't leave because of Ziggler, but because of CM Punk.
*Whistles on past again*
The-Rock-Says is offline  
Closed Thread



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums
Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2
Powered by vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2009 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios