Wrestling Forum banner
1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
942 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I see a lot of talk on these forums about how to determine the success, or lack thereof, of a main-event wrestler.

For the majority of the people on this board, the success of a WWE Champion begins and ends at the numbers.

For example, a lot of people believe that HBK does not belong in the conversation of GOAT b/c "the ratings bombed while he was champion."

My question, I guess, is two-fold:

1) Should the ratings solely determine the success or lack thereof of a champion?
2) When the ratings do suffer or rise, is it solely b/c of the champion?

I am under the belief that it should not matter. I say this because this type of thinking leads one to believe that people are there only to see one thing: whoever is on top at the time and nothing else. I can't speak for any of you, but the main event could be a triple threat between Hogan, Austin, and The Rock, but if the card as a whole looks lackluster, I'm not spending my money. I am under the belief that the show as a whole should be looked at for the reason of ratings suffering or rising, I don't believe whoever the champion is should solely shoulder that burden. That's why I hate to hear ppl say "the ratings bombed under so and so", as if they should be the sole reason why someone watches.

What are your thoughts?
 

·
The Man
Joined
·
25,723 Posts
Only when it fits the haters point. If Ratings bombed now they would say its Punks fault and he is making the title seem midcard, etc etc but then everyone claims Cena is the only draw in wrestling. Cena gets more time than Punk and is showcased as the mainevent of shows and ppvs even when he isn't a champ at all. If ratings bomb blame should be out on creative. If they have the talent and they are booked in terrible storylines then there's nothing a superstar can do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,999 Posts
No. The quality of the overall product dictates everything. Nobody comes to see one particular person, regardless of what anyone tells you. The main event guys are the most advertised and somewhat irreplaceable on the card but business has always been better when there are stacked cards (WM 23) or superfights (WM 28).

Look at some of the lower drawing champions, they also had some of the weakest complimentary characters and were headlining weak cards. Even if someone wanted to buy the event because of a single match they still may not buy it because the rest of the card sucks. Sometimes WM is a better deal on DVD than it is buying the live show, that can be said for any event.

TV ratings are the same. Advertise a main event people want to see but stack the show with crap and you get crappy ratings regardless of who the main event is or who the champion is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
624 Posts
I'd say it's

20% champion's fault.
15% challenger's fault.
10% rest of the rosters fault.
50% bookings fault.
5% other programming on that specific nights (sports, special events, etc) fault.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,118 Posts
Ratings don't fall because of one wrestler.

Seriously, why do people even ask these questions?

If it's "the champions fault", it's a minority, something around 10-20% of their fault for not showing enough in-ring skill or charisma, the rest you can blame on creative, and booking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
It's not the champion's fault. The champion is 1 piece of the puzzle, albeit a bigger than others. If the product as a whole is generally not a good one, ratings will go down. When the product becomes overly repetitive and highly-predictable, the ratings will go down.

Why were the ratings during the Monday Night Wars so high? There was an element of unpredictability. You would never want to miss a show because you didn't wanna miss out on watching something crazy, historic, or legendary. That doesn't exist anymore. The internet and social-networking have changed everything and, thus, have changed everyone's outlook on wrestling too. Missed an episode of Raw, Smackdown, Impact? Just go online and find out what transpired.

Ratings will never be what they used to be, but they can certainly improve with smarter writing and more clever storylines. But that will never happen because Cena will be top dog as long as he's in WWE. Cena is more important than the WWE title (currently held by CM Punk) and I honestly think he's bigger than the WWE now.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,951 Posts
Idiot Punk haters: Yes!

For the rest of us, the ratings are dependent on the culmination of many things. Booking, talent, stories, etc. But if you want to put it on one thing, it is the main storyline of the show. That's what has the most impact on the bottom line than anything else. And right now the main storyline is Cena vs Lauranitis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,999 Posts
It's not the champion's fault. The champion is 1 piece of the puzzle, albeit a bigger than others. If the product as a whole is generally not a good one, ratings will go down. When the product becomes overly repetitive and highly-predictable, the ratings will go down.

Why were the ratings during the Monday Night Wars so high? There was an element of unpredictability. You would never want to miss a show because you didn't wanna miss out on watching something crazy, historic, or legendary. That doesn't exist anymore. The internet and social-networking have changed everything and, thus, have changed everyone's outlook on wrestling too. Missed an episode of Raw, Smackdown, Impact? Just go online and find out what transpired.

Ratings will never be what they used to be, but they can certainly improve with smarter writing and more clever storylines. But that will never happen because Cena will be top dog as long as he's in WWE. Cena is more important than the WWE title (currently held by CM Punk) and I honestly think he's bigger than the WWE now.
That's the biggest issue out there. Time shifted viewing has always been a thorn in the side of television & film industries going back to the creation of the VCR. A VCR is archaic technology today but as recording devices have become more advanced TV ratings have gone down, that's no coincidence, it shows a pattern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
It's the face of the WWE's fault.

100% Cena.
I am one of the biggest Cena hates (Cena the character), but something comes to mind. I believe it's creative's fault. Stories aren't interesting anymore. They were on the verge of something after Cena's loss to the Rock. The Raw after Wrestlemania 28 was one of the best ever ALL AROUND THE BOARD!!! And that's including Cena. But we're back to square one :mad:

Does Cena have enough creative control to do what HE wants!? Better yet, if creative wants to turn him heel (at this point, I'm so fed up w/ Cena that not even that would "spark" my interest again), does Cena have enough creative control to choose NOT to turn heel!? Also, does he have enough control to determine if he wins his matches? If he does, then Cena is a douchebag for putting himself first and not WWE as a whole. Then again, with the way other wrestlers speak so highly of him I doubt that's the case.
 

·
a Stupid Idea from Bad Creative
Joined
·
24,744 Posts
No. The quality of the overall product dictates everything. Nobody comes to see one particular person, regardless of what anyone tells you. The main event guys are the most advertised and somewhat irreplaceable on the card but business has always been better when there are stacked cards (WM 23) or superfights (WM 28).

Look at some of the lower drawing champions, they also had some of the weakest complimentary characters and were headlining weak cards. Even if someone wanted to buy the event because of a single match they still may not buy it because the rest of the card sucks. Sometimes WM is a better deal on DVD than it is buying the live show, that can be said for any event.

TV ratings are the same. Advertise a main event people want to see but stack the show with crap and you get crappy ratings regardless of who the main event is or who the champion is.
Pretty much this. The WHOLE show has a part in THE RATINGZ. The effect that who the champion is has on ratings is so overblown by alot of people on WF.

That's the biggest issue out there. Time shifted viewing has always been a thorn in the side of television & film industries going back to the creation of the VCR. A VCR is archaic technology today but as recording devices have become more advanced TV ratings have gone down, that's no coincidence, it shows a pattern.
This is also a very good point (Y)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
Pretty much this. The WHOLE show has a part in THE RATINGZ. The effect that who the champion is has on ratings is so overblown by alot of people on WF.
WWE thinks they're sneaky. When they attempt to do something different and the ratings bomb, they are quick to blame the current champion. What do they usually do to "solve" the problem? They either put the belt on Cena and/or bring someone from the Attitude Era days.

They've sunk so low that they cannot rely on anyone other than Attidude Era stars and Cena. Well, the AE guys are getting up in age and Cena will not always be around. It's time to start building the talent that will carry the industry in the future and not put the weight of the company on Cena. But they are afraid to do that because ratings go down and, hence, we get more Cena to make the kids happy. smh. Never-ending cycle. Oh well, WWE will implode in the next couple of years after the WWE Network bombs and their stocks fall lower than what they are now.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top