Considering MNF was a game of two backup QBs, I'm surprised more people didn't watch. Although KAEPERNICK is great.
And it was a blowout by time Punk's segment was on.
Got to cut it off right there, since Punk did not main event the Royal Rumble.
Hint: The main event of that PPV is in the title.
His fued was the main fued of that PPV. The build for the PPV was mainly around Punk. Ergo, he was the main event despite the RR match going last as it almost always does. That PPV is unique in that respect, since it's the only one that has that match in it.
No doubt this will likely provoke a reply with an ad hoc stipulation along the lines of 'you know what I mean! Da last match BEFORE da royale! Da royale don't count (since Punk wasn't in it)!!!1!
You didn't doubt it because you already know that's the case. It'd be like me saying you're a terrorist, and that no doubt your reply would be to deny it. Obvious reply is obvious.
Speaking of ad hoc, are you not doing exactly that yourself? You're trying to take the blame off of Punk for the buyrate losses for not having the "final match", despite knowing full well the PPV was practically built around him. The only other fueds were Daniel Bryan defending his title in the first match of the show, and a filler fued with Cena/Kane that didn't get a lot of air time.
So, according to you, nobody deserves credit for RR. But every other PPV can be acredited to someone. Again, for someone trying to be cute by throwing around the phrase "ad hoc", it's exactly the logic you're using.
Well, the 2011 RR it was the...
DIVAS MATCH that went on just prior to the battle royale, so does the divas match count as the Main Event over the royale?
Is there a point here?
The royale is the main event of the Rumble, not the match prior. Punk didn't main event the RR 2012.
I never said the match before the RR is always the main event. Terrible straw man argument.
3, Royal Rumble counts since he was getting the lion's share of air time on Raw every week leading up to the Rumble.
Two. All two had decreased, one of which was by a comparatively small margin, and yet also actually increased domestically (NoC), allegedly.
You don't need to make the same argument twice. Three, not two. Also, domestic numbers don't mean shit when the overall numbers drop.
For example, if a PPV sells better in Texas one year vs the last, it doesn't magically erase it selling worse everywhere else.
And what trend did Ryback have? You go on to say "Punk is 0/3 in getting increased buys without Cena" (actually 0/2) prior to HIAC, yet Ryback prior to HIAC is 0/0 in getting increased buys without Cena. By your own criteria their score was even going in, thus by your own criteria there is nothing to justify crediting Ryback anymore than Punk.
Also, LOL at the terrible thought that 0/3 (or even 0/2) is the same as 0/0. 0/0's percentage would be classified as "N/A", where 0/3 and 0/2 are classified as 0%. It isn't the same thing.
Now it's 100% vs 25%. Or if I induldged you and pretended that CM Punk's fued wasn't the main storyline of RR, it's 33%. Still terrible.
So by my own criteria, Punk has a terrible track record with that, Ryback has no track record. Not the same thing at all. Terrible logic.
Yet, given that Punk is an established main event talent and the Champion, my bias goes to him. If Ryback was still in the ME but not Punk, the only other person I could conceive of as getting as good or better a number than Punk would be Cena. However, in vice-versa, there are still a few names I would suspect could have been thrown in there against Punk and yet still would have drawn as good or even better than Ryback.
Biased without using any statistical facts.
Exempting HIAC, of course.
Obviously, since buyrates weren't released yet when I made the post, so it would've been unjust to act as if the numbers were better or owrse than the previous year. Or is it just ex post facto time for you since your arguments thus far have been pretty bad?
And likewise, Ryback was 0/0 in getting increased buys without Cena, so yes, I am going to see who he was facing and what was going on before I speculate that Ryback is the main reason why the buyrates were good. Facts and trends matter more than absolutely no facts or trends to go on at all, i.e., no Ryback main events wherewith we may compare.
(And do note that I have not said that you did speculate Ryback was the reason.)
I already addressed this. Skipping.
I have to wonder though, are you consistent and do you do the same thing with the inverse data? When Punk main events and numbers are down from the previous year, do you likewise look to see who his opponents were, and what their trends were going in?
I didn't bother since Punk was being heralded as a big draw. If he's a draw, it shouldn't matter very much who he's up against. Therefore I don't need the post the burden of proof on every single point in history. That'd be up to you to formulate an argument about it. Or do you expect every poster to write both sides of every argument with every post? Please.
For instance, since TLC was down, was the fact that his competition was Del Rio & Miz taken into consideration before 'speculating that Punk was the main reason'? Is Del Rio's trend going into that PPV taken into account, namely, the fact that he just main evented two previous PPVs, both of which were down from 2010?
Yet it wasn't down because Cena wasn't there? Okay. here's why that's bullshit:
Miz and Del Rio have PPVed in the past. They have main evented. None of those PPVs tanked by nearly 20%. What more need be said? Seriously.
Can even the best draw in the world still draw well even if he were booked against a "broom-stick"?
Punk isn't the "best in the world". And if you're a draw, it's not supposed to matter who you're up against. You make your fueds good, not coast through them until a good one comes along.
And since you use Cena as a main variable in your data, what was his trend in 2011? In fact, is it taken into account in your data that the trend for 2011 overall was a relatively downward trend, with eight of the thirteen PPVs (the majority) all doing worse than the previous year, most of those in the latter part of the year? Interestingly enough, that same year, 2011, is when the two PPVs you selected to use against Punk occurred. His positive gain (HIAC) happened this year.
Why's that "interesting"? If buyrates tank when Punk main events, they tank. Mentioning them isn't cherry picking.
Since you tried to compare Punk's main event PPVs without Cena in 2011 against the previous year's numbers as data against his drawing ability, and since your elimination of Cena implies you treat him as a better draw, it is interesting to see how Cena holds up when your same ad hoc test is applied to him.
The following data is courtesy of Wikipedia.
While the numbers vary depending on which site you go to, the up or down from the previous year is still consistent, and the margin of difference from site to site is nothing major.
For convenience I chose the Wiki numbers as they are the most commonly repeated I have seen. So if you have more accurate data from a reliable source, cite to me the link and if reliable, I will make the correction.
Royal Rumble = Down
ME: Rumble (Winner Del Rio)
ME: Rumble (Winner Sheamus)
Elimination Chamber = Down
Me: EC, Jericho over Punk, Morrison,R-Truth, UnderTaker, Rey
ME: EC, Cena over Punk, Morrison, R-Truth, Sheamus, Orton
Down? No Cena a better draw than Cena?
Wrestle Mania = Up
ME: UnderTaker over Shawn Michaels
ME: Miz over Cena (Rock as guest host)
Miz = ratings then?
Extreme Rules = Up
ME: Cena over Batista
ME: Cena over Miz & Morrison
Cena was in both, so the variable is the Miz + Morrison. They a better draw than Cena?
I guess this kills your theory that Miz isn't a draw
Over The Limit = Down
ME: Cena over Batista
ME: Cena over Miz
Cena was in both. Cena can't draw as much as Cena? Miz & Cena both in ExRu, so variable is Morrison. Morrison draws 69k more than Cena & Miz combined (sans Rock)?
Capitol Punishment = Up
F4WAY 2010 ~143k
ME: Cena over Sheamus, Edge, & Orton
ME: Cena over R-Truth
Cena was in both, so variable is R-Truth. Cena can't draw as much as Cena? R-Truth a better draw than Edge, Orton, and Sheamus combined?
Money In The Bank = Up
ME: Sheamus over Cena
ME: Punk over Cena
Cena was in both, so variable is Punk.
Summer Slam = Down
ME: 7 vs 7 Elimination, WWE over Nexus
ME: Punk over Cena
Cena in both, so variable is Punk. Understandable that the combined force of 13 other superstars can edge out Punk alone. Ironically, though down from '10, still drew significantly more than their MITB match, which was UP from '10. Is 195>296?
Night of Champions = Down
ME: 6-Pack Elim. Orton over Sheamus, Cena, Edge, Barrett, and Jericho
ME: HHH over Punk
Understandable that 6 stars outdrew 2, one of which was in semi-retirement. Although, the 6 combined only made a difference of 4k.
Hell In A Cell = Down
ME: Kane over Taker
ME: Del Rio over Punk & Cena.
Includes both Punk & Cena. No excuses here. Not yet, at least.
Vengeance = Down
Brag. Rights 2010 ~137k
ME: Orton over Barett
ME: Del Rio over Cena
Worst draw of the year. It even did worse than Bragging Rights from the previous year, which is quite a feat, given that BR 2010 was considered such a flop that BR 2011 was cancelled and eventually replaced with Vengeance. So actually, this was the worst draw of the past TWO years up to that point (possibly even further, haven't checked yet. And who headlined? Who drew the worst buyrate of the past two years from '10-'11?
Here's the problem with that: You're only going one year back when Cena has a very long career of bringing in big buyrates. You're also throwing every PPV out the window that Cena got good buys in, and are harping on every PPV that dropped in buyrates. Pidgeon-holing the discussion with special rules doesn't work.
I'm just going to yank this from another thread to prove my point:
So lets look at the evidence presented; John Cena is seemingly proving to be a bigger draw than Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, The Undertaker, Kurt Angle and Brock Lesnar. Granted, he aint pulling the same kind of numbers as Austin and The Rock, but he ain't that far behind.
Lets take a closer look at the figures. In spite of the jeers, buyrates for the 2005 ppv's were some of the best ever:
Wrestlemania 21 drew the highest pay-per-view buyrate in the history of the event, Wrestlemania 22 will break it (you have to understand the buyrate system has changed over the years; the 10.2 buyrate for Wrestlemania III would be different to a modern 10.2 buyrate).
Judgment Day 2005 drew the highest buyrate since Judgment Day 2002 (which you'll remember featured a bona-fide dream card).
Vengeance 2005 was only fractionally beaten by Vengeance 2002, but still managed to outdraw 2001, 2003 and 2004.
Summerslam 2005 drew the highest buyrate since Summerslam 2000 and outdrew 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997.
Survivor Series 2005 drew the highest buyrate since Survivor Series 2001 (the big WWF vs. WCW finale) and outdrew 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997.
Royal Rumble 2006 drew the highest buyrate since Royal Rumble 2002, and outdrew 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998. It was also only fractionally behind Royal Rumble 2001.
New Years Revolution 2006 and Taboo Tuesday 2005 drew larger buyrates than New Years Revolution 2005 and Taboo Tuesday 2004.
Cena's not a draw though? Not to mention he main evented several of the highest drawing Wrestlemanias ever.
Oh, but let me predict your reply, since you like doing that: "What happened that long ago doesn't matter, (insert some meandering rant reason why)".
Well then guess what? 2010 doesn't matter either since it's 2 years ago. If 3 years ago doesn't count, 2 years ago doesn't either. So then we're back to where we were to begin with. Who drew more since Punk got his big main event push? Whoops, John Cena. He's still the bigger draw.
Del Rio and...
When they had Punk a moth earlier, they weren't far off the 200k mark. When it was just Punk & Cena earlier in the year, they WERE around the 200k mark and later around the 300k mark.
I ask again, can even the best draw in the world still draw well even if booked against a "broomstick"?
Evidently, the answer is no.
He isn't the best in the world, and of course the answer is no. He isn't The Rock. But that isn't the discussion anyway, it's unfair to compare him to a legend.
Should Punk be expected to draw any better with the same broomstick? I don't think it's fair to. Yet Punk DID do better with that broomstick at TLC.
Why do you keep saying the same thing? That's like the third or fourth time you've said that.
Survivor Series = Up
ME: Orton over Barrett
ME: Rock & Cena over Awesome Truth
You talk about trends, well, one I'm noticing that is rather conspicuous is that the Rock still draws.
TLC = Down
ME: Punk over Del Rio & Miz
Punk booked against that same broomstick didn't seem to manage to bring down SS, and when booked in a rematch the very next PPV, while down from TLC 2010, it still WAY outdrew Cena with the broomstick.
Why didn't you post the main event of TLC 2010? It was Cena vs Barret AGAIN. Speaking of broomsticks, Cena ourdrew Punk vs Miz and Del Rio with that very same broomstick, in a REPEAT MATCH. lol~ That's even worse.
But hey, those TLC numbers for Punk weren't fair, since Cena wasn't on the show very much to help him draw. Oh wait, that's the point I was making in the first place. Silly me, I forgot for a second there.
Both Del Rio & Punk also main evented HIAC, so the variable here is Miz replacing Cena.
And if you're crediting guys evenly, based on the table from wikipedia you posted, Miz drew well in 2 of his 3 PPV main events prior to that PPV. So either you have to admit Miz is a draw, or you have to admit Cena carried the fued with Miz and was the draw there. Either way, it punches another hole in your already very perforated argument.
Since you excluded Punk's main events that included Cena because you suspected Cena's drawing power skews the data, I too will exclude Cena's main events that involve the Rock, as I likewise suspect that skews the data, hence I shall nix WM and SurSer.
Also, since you counted even the one where Punk main evented with more than one opponent, I shall likewise not exclude the main events where Cena had multiple opponents.
See, the argument is Cena vs Punk, not Cena vs Punk vs Rock, so you can't exclude The Rock unless you're just wanting to create more special rules for yourself.
So let's take a timeout to review all your special rules:
If Cena main evented a PPV the year before, it "doesn't count" if he draws better the next year. That way you can exclude most of his increased buyrates, and just focus on decreases to spin doctor your obviously false belief that Cena doesn't draw as much as Punk.
Since the argument is Cena vs Punk, and we're excluding their matches against eachother for obvious reasons, you also want to exclude any matches with The Rock, hey, or any PPVs with him in it! That way you can take 3 more increased draws off his record. Though I'm sure if/when Punk faces The Rock at RR, you won't be excluding that in Punk's drawing power if you come on here to argue about it later.
"RR doesn't count", even when their fued gets by far the most air time of any fued on Raw.
Predicted future argument: Anything more than 2 years ago doesn't count, because Cena drew well, therefore you want to make sure that's excluded too.
You might's well come right out and say we can't include any buyrate gains Cena got, that way we're only left with losses.
That leaves Cena with 8 main evented PPVs in 2011, 3 of which were UP, 5 were down, and one of those 5 was the absolute worst of 2011 AND 2010, and in a year that was already on a downward trend at that.
That's what happens when you're competing against yourself, and are carrying the load of so many PPVs every year. There's going to be ups and downs in a given season, so it will reflect on the guy who's in most of the main events.
Here's the thing:
Ratings were higher than they are now in both 2010 and 2011. Ratings started dropping on Raw at two key points: When Punk won the WWE title for the second time, and after Cena defeated Brock Lesnar and was kayfabe injured. Not joking. Review the facts here, and compare to events that were happening on Raw:
2011 was just a bad year period, the few high points seem to be connected with the Rock or Punk's "shoot" buzz.
Actually, wrong. Review the ratings list, and buyrates list. Other than the immediate fallout of the Punk shoot (MITB), there was practicaly no impact on either buyrates or ratings. The more Punk was spotlighted, the more ratings dropped, and the more buyrates dropped from the previous year.
This is the point that seems to be going over your head. The PPVs I'm mentioning with Punk (yes last year), were supposed to be at the peak of Punk's popularity. When his push was fresh, when he was "still cool". . .supposedly. Yet, according to ratings and buyrates, it had a negative impact, not positive.
Cena on his own doesn't seem to be that much more of a draw than Punk, if at all.
If this, then that? Rofl. They aren't equal. Review the facts. More bad logic dude.
Our only common data point between them is when they faced each other and/or Del Rio, in which case, Punk appears to have drawn better with Del Rio than Cena did. You might be able to argue a Miz factor in there, but by that point (TLC) he had fallen from grace.
More rule changes, cool. Now Miz counts as a draw in the past when he was facing Cena, but not when he was facing Punk. Convienient, AGAIN. All you do is make excuses and try to exclude as much as possible to suit your false belief.
The difference between us is that my opinion is based on the facts I've seen, and that you look at the facts and try to suit them to your opinion.
So I think Toxie still has a point. Punk hasn't been able to outdraw Cena because he hasn't been given as much opportunity as Cena, he hasn't been booked as well as him, even after being champ. Only now, in the latter half of 2012 is WWE finally starting to book Punk in a way as if to see if their time invested in him will pay off. And if HIAC is any indication, it looks like it is finally starting to.
That's a matter of opinion. I think Punk has been given every possible luxury and more. Nobody else on the show has gotten more luxury with the exception of Cena getting placed in Matches with The Rock and Brock Lesnar. . .PPVs which you choose to exclude from the argument.
Ryback has appeal, he has potential to be a draw, but I say as of right now there is no data to say that he is, at least, no data to say he is MORE of a draw than Punk.
Except the fact that all of his segments drew 200k+ since his recent push started, besides the one where he had a 4 minute squash match right before a be a star/susan g komen commercial (whatever it was) and divas match immediately after, and the entire block was calculated for the ratings, and not just his match. And that he is 1/1 in PPVs being big buyrates when main eventing with someone besides John Cena, and Punk is 1/4 since Summer of Punk. You know, other than that tidbit, there's no data to say he is.
Btw, I don't think Ryback is a bigger draw than Punk on a regular basis. My point was that it's perfectly reasonable to assume Ryback was the cause of the good buyrates because he was the hotter ticket at the time, and didn't have a track record of bombing in main events without Cena like Punk does. Not that Ryback is going to sell more merch, main event and gets shittons of buys for the rest of his life. Obviously not, since Punk's been pushed hard as fuck for a year and a half and Ryback has 2 months of push going for him.
18 months vs 2. . .obviously Punk is the bigger draw in general, but for that PPV? Ryback deserves plenty of the credit. He was the interesting part of that fued, NOT Punk. It was just Punk title defense #12. Far be it from me to assume what other people think but I don't think casuals don't give a shit about that. Ryback was the hot ticket, not Punk. You've got to be really biased to not realize that.
Give him some credit ffs. Are you one of these people who think that when someone says Punk is less of a draw than Cena, that they're saying he's a shit draw? Punk can draw, just not as much as Cena. Without Cena, the show doesn't draw that well. It doesn't mean Punk sucks dick, it just means Cena is that important (and no, I am not a Cena fan, I'm just somebody with a basic grasp of logic that doesn't deny factual numbers). It's reflected in the numbers. You can cherry pick Cena's worst PPV numbers all you want, but you can't deny the entirty of his history, or the fact that his PPVs have been vastly outdrawing Punk, and that Punk's only big PPVs are against Cena.
Depending on how this month's PPV is booked, I don't expect it to do all that great, since rumor is Punk dropping to Rock at Rumble has been written in stone for a while now, so December will probably just be a filler month until then. Though this Ambrose/Reigns/Rollins stable has me intrigued.
So now you're progressing to the pre-emptive excuse, rather than the ex post facto excuse. More convienient exceptions for your argument. Good for you.
I do agree though that the ratings will probably suck and that it's likely just filler. . .like the last few months have been. First correct thing you've said that you didn't just paste from wikipedia.