Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
849 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
For years I've listened to the IWC dispute Hogan or Austin, 80's or Attitude, which was bigger, which was more global. Well, here's your answer.

Source- Wikipedia.

Saturday Night's Main Event was a tremendous ratings success for NBC during its heyday, most notably on the March 14, 1987 show, which drew an 11.6 rating, which to this day remains the highest rating any show has ever done in that time slot. That show was headlined by a battle royal featuring Hulk Hogan and André the Giant, who were slated to face each other at WrestleMania III. As Hogan rarely wrestled on the WWF syndicated and cable television shows, Saturday Night's Main Event was the program on free television where most viewers were able to see him in action. The success of Saturday Night's Main Event led to several Friday night prime time specials, known as The Main Event. The first of these, on February 5, 1988 featured a WrestleMania III rematch between Hogan and André and drew 33 million viewers and a 15.2 rating, which is still the highest-rated television show in professional wrestling history. This event was shown live. The late night shows however were always taped 1–2 weeks prior to airing.

Febuary 5, 88'. 15.2, 33 million. The Rock's "this is your life" segment which you attitude lovers claim is wrestling's TV peak for ratings is shattered. Hell, even the 11.6 destroys any rating since. Over twice as many viewers people, that is simply argument proof. I hate Hogan, and Austin may have sold more T-shirts, but nothing, and I mean nothing can compete with 80's Hogan. He was HUGE. I understand people that started watching in the late 90's will prefer and turn a blind eye to the facts, but your lying to yourself. 33 million fucking viewers, seriously. It's 25 years later and every hobo on the street knows who Hulk Hogan is. Do you think in 15 years everyone on the planet will know Stone Cold Steve Austin or The Rock, Fuck No. But I swear who doesn't know Hulk Hogan? I can't wait to hear Attitude marks excuse for this.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,757 Posts
Wow! The ratings back then compared to now are just so different and to think that 33 million people to see Hogan/Andre rematch, just shows how much of a dive professioal wrestling hs took in terms of popularity.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,929 Posts
Dude, Hogan in 80's was more popular than Pope and Rolling Stones. Hogan put 93,000 butts in Pontiac Silverdome. Week before that Mick Jagger put 80,000 butts, and week after WM 3 The Pope (from Vatican) put 78,000 butts in Pontiac's seats. Love him or hate him, Hulkster is a true Wrestling God. It goes beyond wrestling, he's a Pop Culture icon.
 

·
I must away and tend to my ravens
Joined
·
11,236 Posts
You do know that the number doesn't directly corrolate to actual viewing numbers don't you, it's a measure of audience share. I'm not an American and I don't know how many tv stations there were in the states back then but I would guess it was fewer than there are today. Take this as an example, the highest rated show in British tv history is the 1986 Eastenders christmas episode which got 30.15 million viewers. Sounds impressive right? What if I tell you that there were only 4 stations in the UK at the time.

The number for SNME, while impressive, must be taken in context. What was the time-slot? How many alternative stations were there? What were those stations showing? Without that information the ratings (and indeed all ratings) are meaningless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
849 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I love how people just brush it off like who cares, when the argument of Austin or Rock to Hogan has been done to death and with so much passion. And it's not opinion, 15.2 is a earth shattering factual number, not my opinion. The Rocks segment was like a 7.1 and was just that segment, the show probably only did a 5.8 or 5.9. The numbers prove the WWF was being watched by more people (A LOT more people) during Hogans run than Austins or Rocky. Again, proof, not opinion.
 

·
DAVID OTUNGA's Personal Assistant
Joined
·
9,748 Posts
You do know that the number doesn't directly corrolate to actual viewing numbers don't you, it's a measure of audience share. I'm not an American and I don't know how many tv stations there were in the states back then but I would guess it was fewer than there are today. Take this as an example, the highest rated show in British tv history is the 1986 Eastenders christmas episode which got 30.15 million viewers. Sounds impressive right? What if I tell you that there were only 4 stations in the UK at the time.

The number for SNME, while impressive, must be taken in context. What was the time-slot? How many alternative stations were there? What were those stations showing? Without that information the ratings (and indeed all ratings) are meaningless.
was about to post this myself.

this proves absolutely nothing. congratulations on the pointless research.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
849 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
And the "how many TV station were there?" or "what was the time slot?" is a classic cop out. Why don't we figure out how many people took a shit during the first quarter hour while we're at it. The number is unstoppable, excuses do not help. By the way, there we lots and lots of TV station's in America in the late 80's, jesus it wasn't the 40's.
 

·
I must away and tend to my ravens
Joined
·
11,236 Posts
I love how people just brush it off like who cares, when the argument of Austin or Rock to Hogan has been done to death and with so much passion. And it's not opinion, 15.2 is a earth shattering factual number, not my opinion. The Rocks segment was like a 7.1 and was just that segment, the show probably only did a 5.8 or 5.9. The numbers prove the WWF was being watched by more people (A LOT more people) during Hogans run than Austins or Rocky. Again, proof, not opinion.
But does it? If you look at the questions I points I raised in my previous post you'll see that there are a number of factors which the Wiki article you posted fails to address (a link would have been helpful btw)

Having taken all of those points into consideration it may well turn out that Hogan was still the bigger draw (which I expect to be the case incidently) but without all the information your flat statement in inconclusive.

And the "how many TV station were there?" or "what was the time slot?" is a classic cop out. Why don't we figure out how many people took a shit during the first quarter hour while we're at it. The number is unstoppable, excuses do not help. By the way, there we lots and lots of TV station's in America in the late 80's, jesus it wasn't the 40's.
I take it this is aimed at me. I find that funny since I happen to agree with you in general. I just think you need more information.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
725 Posts
And the "how many TV station were there?" or "what was the time slot?" is a classic cop out. Why don't we figure out how many people took a shit during the first quarter hour while we're at it. The number is unstoppable, excuses do not help. By the way, there we lots and lots of TV station's in America in the late 80's, jesus it wasn't the 40's.
Like 20 or 30 or 40? ... because I've had over 200 TV stations over the last few years.

Times change. It would take a lot more research than your wikipedia searching to come to any legitimate conclusion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,807 Posts
I personally don't care about the numbers - it doesn't reflect quality from my opinion standpoint. After all over 40 million households in America watched the Dallas that revealed who shot JR. Doesn't mean I think Dallas is hot shit.

So yeah, in a different era Hogan pulled some REALLY big numbers. That's great for him and it may or may not mean Hulkamania was bigger than Austin and the attitude era.

But it doesn't change the fact that in my mind, Austin was several times over a better performer than Hulk and infinitely more entertaining than he was at the height of Hulkamania.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Wrestling was just hitting mainstream big time in that era with Hogan as its flag bearer. Ppl were curious and fascinated by wrestling at that time and wanted to see what it was about. Hogan was over the top and ppl loved it. When the attitude era hit it was a completely different landscape. Ppl already knew what wrestling was and Austin was the flag bearer for what the 90s stood for in American culture, with many having already biased opinions about wrestling in general at the time. To place numbers as an argument isn't good enough for a complete argument. There's too many factors to base it off numbers alone
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,400 Posts
Look I'm sorry these facts don't mean shit, yeah I said it, I choose what I like on my OPINION no a bunch of stats, so how dare you say its proof of what's better, well no I'll make my own mind up thanks.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
43,607 Posts
Well I love the Rock & Wrestling Era & The Attitude Era, so I'll give my two cents.


Which era was better? Whichever one you think it was, and I don't think numbers should influence your opinion one way or the other. If you like it, good for you. If you don't, that's fine. I don't like Twilight because it makes a shit load of money. I still think its shit. On the other side of the coin, "It's a Wonderful Life" bombed when it first came out and was panned. Could have fooled me, because the ending to that film brings a tear to my eye every single time. Should that change because of numbers?

And I'll throw Wrestlemania III in there too. There have been reports that the actual crowd was about 78,000 instead of the proclaimed 93,000. I've heard people argue both sides back and forth, and to be honest, I don't care. Watching the show, Savage/Steamboat & Hogan/Andre are no less magic because of a fabricated crowd number.

Don't use numbers to shape your opinions about what is supposed to be an art form & entertainment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,590 Posts
How much people had cable back then? Maybe that's the reason it was 11.6. Less viewers, higher percentage. I also find it quit strange. Ratings used to be 8.0+ constantly in the 80s.
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top