Is anyone a "draw" anymore?

[Loss]

I can accept heel Hogan as a draw and "ace" from 96-8, but the Hogan of 94-5 wasn't over with the WCW crowds.

 

There is an argument to say that WCW's buys would have been up in 94-5 from the lows of 92-3 in any circumstance.

 

What did the last PPV before Hogan's arrival do, vs. the match with Flair in 94? Certainly at that show there were significant portions of the crowd on Flair's side and that remained the case through Hogan's face run.

 

Hogan was very stale in 92, and after a brief comeback pop also in 93, he continued to be stale in 94 and 95.

 

Would love to see the figures.

Hogan/Flair at Havoc was to that point the most watched WCW pay-per-view ever if I recall correctly. I know the spin from the anti-Hogan types was that Bash at the Beach '94 got half the buyrate of Bash '89, and that is true, but I'm not sure if it's alarming as it sounds because of the changes in the PPV universe between 1989 and 1994. Just like Flair/Funk gets called the most successful house show run in company history until the boom period. That doesn't mean Flair/Funk was successful. Numbers do have opinions, regardless of what anyone says.

 

Wrestling was at an all-time low in popularity in the U.S. from 1992-1996. The Monday Night Wars changed things, but no one in a headlining position was able to re-steer the sinking ship in the years prior, even the proven draws of years past like Hogan and Flair. Those two did better than others in the same spots, but still weren't lighting the world on fire.

[Loss]

Orton is the modern Sting. Over with live crowds, but makes no difference as a headliner. But he's been in the position so long that people just assume he's successful there.

[JerryvonKramer]

Going back to what the OP is getting at though, the WWE seems to push brand and company name (and individual PPVs like Mania) over whoever is on those cards. It's almost like the wrestlers don't matter.

 

I think it's a mistake to look at the top of the card. Look at the undercard.

 

Take any random show from the 80s and Gorilla's line about the match being "main event anywhere in the country" is true. Look at Mania VI.

 

Dino Bravo vs. Jim Duggan would have been a drawing match anywhere in the US or Canada.

 

Ted DiBiase vs. Jake Roberts is a drawing match.

 

Dusty Rhodes vs. Savage is a drawing match.

 

Rude vs. Snuka is a drawing match.

 

Demolition vs. Haku and Andre is a drawing match.

 

Every guy listed there, with the possible exception of Haku, was a proven main event draw. When I'm saying "draw", I don't mean just fans of wrestling, I mean women and children, and the casual audience.

 

If a kid or in fact ANYONE happened to get a random glipse of something like Bossman vs. Akeem, the flash of colour and interesting characters and level of gimmick, is enough of a hook to keep them watching for 5 minutes. Then they might catch a Jake promo and they'll be interested, they'll keep watching.

 

 

Let's look at 2012's Mania with this sort of objective in mind. The idea of a casual person just happening to catch something that's on:

 

Sheamus vs Daniel Bryan - not in any sense a drawing match, no interest for the casual

 

Kane defeated Randy Orton - arguably a drawing match. People might remember Kane. He has an interesting look. Orton within the world of current WWE is treated like a big name.

 

Big Show vsCody Rhodes - only partly a drawing match. Big Show is recognisable, and he has "attraction" appeal. Cody Rhodes has nothing interesting about him.

 

Kelly Kelly and Maria Menounos vs Beth Phoenix and Eve - nope

 

The Undertaker vs Triple H (w/ Shawn as ref) - yes. Obvious reasons.

 

Team Johnny (David Otunga (captain), Mark Henry, Dolph Ziggler, Jack Swagger, The Miz, and Drew McIntyre) (with John Laurinaitis, Vickie Guerrero and Brie Bella) vs Team Teddy (Santino Marella (captain), R-Truth, Kofi Kingston, Zack Ryder, The Great Khali, and Booker T) (with Teddy Long, Hornswoggle, Eve, Nikki Bella and Aksana) - absolutely no interest there for anyone apart from maybe Indians who know Great Khali.

 

CM Punk © vs Chris Jericho - afraid not, Punk means nothing to anyone outside of wrestling and neither does Jericho.

 

 

The Rock vs John Cena - yes, obvious reasons. This is as strong a main event as Hogan vs. Warrior.

 

It's the undercard where things have really taken a dive.

[Loss]

Dino Bravo, Rick Rude and Demolition mean something to non-wrestling fans? Maybe Punk and Jericho don't either, but it's not like they are any less meaningful as names than Rude, Bravo or Demolition. And they both definitely mean more than Orton.

[Marty]

I think Jerry is also overstating the Rude-Snuka match. If memory serves, it was a total throwaway match, added much later on without any build. It was designed to somewhat rebuild Rude for the Warrior title program later on. Snuka didn't really mean anything by this point. He was feuding with a post-IC title Honky Tonk Man in '89 and a full-fledge JTTS.

 

WM6 as a whole was all about Hogan-Warrior. In fact, from a draw perspective, that's arguable, since the place sold out before Hogan-Warrior was even announced. Rhodes-Savage tag, Demos-Andre/Haku, Beefcake-Perfect and Roberts-DiBiase were also programs which gave those matches some meaning, but I don't think they even approached what Hogan-Warrior meant. Everything else was filler, if memory serves.

[soup23]

I would even put Jake the Snake and Ted DIbiase in fringe range for people 35 and under. One example that sticks out to me was on a Bill Simmions podcast one time, a guest asked Bill (who was a wrestling fan growing up) what the million dollar's man tag line was. Bill's friend House was on the podcast and had no idea and Bill rattled off something like "he was the money money guy." This shows that even though a line like "everyone has a price for the Million Dollar Man is so accustmed to fans of that era or big wrestling fans in general, it just doesn't resonate to casual viewers and I feel if I gave a random questionnaire to the people I worked with, probably a third or less would be able to distinquish Jake Roberts a pro wrestler vs. a football player, baseball player, etc.

[ohtani's jacket]

The other day I was showing someone the Mean Gene "fuck it" moment and he said "Rick Rude! I remember him." I don't think people remember everyone from that era, but there's always a handful of names they remember.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think the point I've been making has been missed - people are getting wrapped up in the specifics of Mania 6, I could have picked any card. REPEAT: THE PARTICULARS OF MANIA 6 DON'T MATTER, JUST A RANDOM CARD TO GENERATE A BUNCH OF NAMES. That means all the stuff about who people remember or what fans know now or whether or not Rude/ Snuka was a last minute afterthought and the entire house was sold by Hogan vs. Warrior simply does not matter.

 

The point was not even that everyone and their dog knew Roberts, DiBiase etc. either, nor who remembers them, the point is:

 

- At that time they were draws, they were draws through a mixture of being well known AND having recognisable characters and gimmicks that may perk the interest of SOMEONE NOT INTO WRESTLING. i.e. someone might have no clue who DiBiase or Roberts are, but when he hears Jake talking about avarice and greed with a snake wrapped around his shoulders or DiBiase fanning a bunch of $100 bills and stuffing one in a guy's mouth -- THAT's something that even a total casual non-fan can get into instantly.

 

So:

 

1. They had some name value as draws

 

2. They had drawing gimmicks that could perk the interest of casuals

[Loss]

There is no proof that that is true, nor can that be proven.

[JerryvonKramer]

It can be proven by looking at the audience demographics for WWF shows at that time vs. now, and also looking at GROWTH in the periods when the promotion was running those sorts of workers with those sorts of gimmicks.

[Loss]

Growth in which revenue stream? The emotions that make people buy an action figure are not the same emotions that make people buy a ticket.

[NintendoLogic]

Oh, boy. Here we go.

[JerryvonKramer]

Growth in all the streams that took the WWF from being a regional super territory in 84 to selling out Wembley stadium in 1992. It wasn't just Hogan, that's far too simplistic, far too crude a way of looking at it.

[Loss]

But that's not proof on its own of anything. That's coincidence, not cause. I don't think it was just Hogan. It was Hogan and Vince. Rude and Bravo are no more responsible for the success of the WWF during that time than The Godfather and The Headbangers were responsible for the success of the late 90s. (By the way, speaking of Bravo, I have never seen a guy who had such a forgettable WWF run get so much discussion on his WWF run.)

 

For live events, the lifeblood of the company, the main event sold the show. This is not some radical new idea, and it's not an exclusive concept to the WWF. Whoever was on top deserves the credit. Hogan was on top. Therefore, Hogan deserves the credit. Everyone else in the company is secondary. You can compare heels who had runs against Hogan to each other by comparing the gates they drew opposite Hogan in the same venues. I suppose you could compare other people on the card to each other by comparing their action figure sales. I wish we had those numbers. But I don't buy into the idea of intangible value.

 

Also, midcards don't really exist just to exist or fill out a show. Well, maybe they do sometimes, but that's silly. They are a breeding ground for future main events. Rude going over Snuka so strongly on the WM undercard was because he would be headlining the next pay-per-view against Warrior. Earthquake went over Hercules for the same reasons. Those matches weren't really there to draw people on their own, but at the same time, it's undercutting their value to call them filler. Vince and Patterson knew where they were heading post-Mania and used Mania to build up the heels that would be carrying them into summer.

 

Wrestling is all about the main event. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy other things happening on a card, as we all have at various points. But it's not the driving force. It's just along for the ride.

[JerryvonKramer]

That's not the full picture though.

 

Did Hogan headline all the 100s of sell out house shows the company ran during that time?

 

Was it Hogan that broke Texas or running matches like JYD vs DiBiase or JYD vs. Anyone there because they knew those guys were over with the local market?

 

To say the biggest expansion wrestling has ever known was solely down to one drawing star is ridiculous.

 

Sure TV drove it and he was the big star of the show, but the product had to be hot too, the undercard had to be hot for people to stay tuned in and turn up to all those hundreds of non-Hogan live shows that drew 8,000 every time.

 

Just think you're selling the rest of the roster very short.

[Loss]

There were definitely people on the roster capable of sustaining the momentum Hogan created, and who could draw for short periods of time. But no one else could have anchored the ship, and no one else could have created that much momentum from the top. Yes, there were sellouts on shows that did not involve Hogan, but they were in a climate that had Hogan around. Honky Tonk Man drew sellouts on shows without Hogan in 1987 while IC champ. Savage and Steamboat headlined shows that drew well too, as did Savage and DiBiase. So I get what you're saying. But among them all, Hogan was the only transcendent guy.

[JerryvonKramer]

Yeah I'm not disputing that.

 

I'm saying that your Dibiases, Jakes, Duggans and so on could be billed as main events for a house show and draw 8000+ crowds.

 

I'm saying Sheamus vs. Ziggler couldn't do that and it's not even sold like that, it's sold on "Raw is coming to town" or the WWE are doing a show. That's how they get their house show numbers now.

[Slasher]

Yeah I'm not disputing that.

 

I'm saying that your Dibiases, Jakes, Duggans and so on could be billed as main events for a house show and draw 8000+ crowds.

 

I'm saying Sheamus vs. Ziggler couldn't do that and it's not even sold like that, it's sold on "Raw is coming to town" or the WWE are doing a show. That's how they get their house show numbers now.

There was advertising for the past month or so on local TV for a WWE show taking place in September, a hour away from here. Their selling point? John Cena. So yes they do spotlight certain wrestlers to try to boost ticket sales.

[Dylan Waco]

House shows with Cena draw better in my experience - by a wide margin.

 

Guys like JYD, Dibiase, et were draws around the WWF loop to one degree or another, but they were not the people who made the brand cool/hip in the first place. They were pieces of a puzzle. You can and should give them credit and I think Loss of all people knows this given how he has pimped the value of acts like the Hardyz to the Attitude Era. But you should be careful not to exaggerate or inflate their importance.

 

In many ways the big value guys like that brought was addition by subtraction from competitors.

[NintendoLogic]

Most of the undercard guys Jerry points to were already territorial headliners before they came to the WWF. So if the undercard has taken a dive, it's largely because there are no more successful territories to raid.

[Loss]

Yes, Matt and Jeff Hardy are perfect examples. They were extremely popular, made the company money and drew well with a segment of the audience. But it was more that they were able to succeed in an already good environment, not increase the fanbase that was already there for Austin and Rock. The WWF had plenty of guys like that in the 80s. It's only been in the last few years that they haven't anymore.

 

That said, even as popular a team as they were, crediting them for the WWF's success is going overboard.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think there is a difference between the guys I was on about and the Hardy Boyz though. I don't think the analogy is perfect.

 

Hardys were a value add in an already hot promotion.

 

JYD, DiBiase, Jake, Rude, etc. etc. were robbing the opposition of their draws and then using those same draws to break certain towns AND they were a value add in an already hot promotion.

 

I guess, there's an argument to say that once towns are established as WWF towns, then there's no more need for your JYDs and Duggans and so on ... I can go along with that.

 

Buttttt ....

 

I was actually making ANOTHER point:

 

- How do you draw in a random viewer flicking over channels and keep them watching? It's the show vs. the button on the remote control.

 

- My argument is this: that if you have colourful characters like a Million Dollar Man, or a Bossman, or a Brutus Beefcake, or whoever, then you've got your hook for the random channel surfer.

 

5 minutes in and he's see a rich man humilate a jobber, now he's watching a promo from Demolition! Now after 10 minutes he's getting his first look at Hulk Hogan who he's heard so much about. And maybe he sees enough to come back next week.

 

What hooked YOU as a fan to start off with?

 

What I'm saying is that if you switch on any random 5 minutes of Raw or SD now, you don't have that. You just don't. There's no hook there. I can't quantify that, but I do think it's been the trend for a decade now. This is kind of "the bland era" now, it's almost back to Backlund levels of dull.

 

Feel free to disagree. My view is that the 80s boom was built on a combination of things: Hogan yes, to an extent the thing with buying regional stars, yes, but also that any kid turning on Primetime saw a host of colourful and interesting characters that held their interest long enough to get into a story.

 

That's how they got from a standard wrestling audience to a mass mainstream audience.

[ohtani's jacket]

I got hooked as an 8 year-old not only by the colourful characters but the fact that everyone else at school was watching it. I don't know if wrestling creates that sort of buzz on the playground these days (it was literally a phenomenon like Transformers or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), but what's to stop an 8 year-old getting hooked if he catches a glimpse on TV?

 

The era that you're talking about died a death in the early 90s. You can't reproduce it for today's kids anymore than you can reproduce the glory of 80s toys, cartoons, comic books and arcade games. It belongs to the past.

 

I do agree that the focus on the entire roster was important, though. It wasn't just Hogan. As far as I recall, people followed all the storylines heading into a PPV and were into guys at every point of the card. It was a slickly oiled machine in that respect.

[Loss]

Why weren't undercard matches very heated most of the time?

[ohtani's jacket]

I haven't seen any examples of undercard matches lacking heat. Then again, how many undercard matches were worked to garner heat?