Is drawing money overrated as a metric when discussing wrestlers?

[Loss]

Well, is it? Have at it in this thread, which means this thread.

[thebrainfollower]

Depends on who's talking. I don't believe it's a be all and end all but remember how much that argument was used to bury Parv's dream of Sting in the WON Hall of Fame. If it's a metric it should be for everybody.

 

I truly believe to be one of the all time greatest you have to have gotten people to say "darn I need to see that guy". Austin did it. Hogan did it. Flair, Lawler, Funk, Bruno, Bob, Harley so many did it.

 

But to give two examples of guys who didn't and are just a notch below one of the all time greats in North America for me would be Bret Hart and Vader.

[Loss]

Well, Vader did get in the WON HOF because he is probably the best wrestler in his weight class in history. Bret got in because he was probably the best working top guy in the history of the company in 1996, or at least that was the perception. So not everyone gets in for the same reasons. If Sting was one of the best workers of his era or had something else about him that made him stand out in a hugely positive way, his numbers would still be there, but I'm not sure they would be used against him in quite the same way. And I say that acknowledging that WCW's structural issues were such that almost no one could have drawn in that environment.

[DR Ackermann]

Plus, Vader and Bret were both big draws outside of the U.S.

[thebrainfollower]

I would place Sting definitely below Bret and Vader. I think the WON contains more guys than a small "greatest of all time" list would just to be clear. I'd be talking top 10, maybe 20 at a stretch US based workers since say roughly 1980 when video footage is out there often enough to make a good judgment call.

[Loss]

But yes, I think in the end, we try to assign objective criteria to something where we simply can't. It's easier to discuss drawing money because there's something objective we can point to (although despite conventional wisdom, numbers also have opinions and can be spun to represent just about anything). If we want to discuss wrestlers on the merits of their performance in the ring, on the mic and in angles, that requires more effort from those doing the discussing.

 

On the flip side, I hear about something like Donald Trump breaking records at Wrestlemania 23. I wouldn't know that was something special or really hot unless someone told me so, because it didn't feel like anything special at the time. I didn't have that feeling watching it that we were witnessing this iconic event. CM Punk cutting a semi-shoot promo in 2011 felt like a much bigger deal, but didn't draw at that level. I haven't heard anyone come up with a good explanation for those types of differences, when the numbers just don't match what we experienced. Similarly, if John Cena is hated by most live audiences for TV tapings and Daniel Bryan looks more over than anyone since the days of Steve Austin, why don't the numbers match what we are seeing in both directions? It's puzzling. You always hear stories of promoters going under by living and dying by crowd reaction, but why does such a disparity even exist? In theory, the things people pay to see are the things they are most excited about, right?

[thebrainfollower]

Which numbers Loss? Merch sales? Cena's are driven by kids who aren't there in great numbers or aren't as loud.

 

And I think we've argued this before but Vince's goal in the last decade has to been to ensure no wrestler is a draw. He's finally succeeded, for better or worse The streak was the last definite draw and look how that ended, not with a bang but a whimper.

 

We're literally back to the mid 90's where nobody really draws and have been for ten years. And will continue to be until someone comes up with a truly hot idea.

[Loss]

Continuing, could part of this be explained as there being a difference between booking to please an existing audience and booking to expand an audience? Both WWF booms were fueled by pissing off longtime hardcore fans in the goal of drawing more fans. 1997 had the most emotionally invested fans of any year I can recall for the promotion, but it's not the most financially successful for whatever reason.

[thebrainfollower]

I think we underestimate how long things can take to take off sometimes. I'd argue that WCW did a ton of harm to itself in 97 and WWF a ton of good but it took a year for that to be so clear that the tide turned numbers wise.

 

And WWF until Wrestlemania seemed booked to anger the existing audience and stamp out any hope of a new one. Now they at least seem to be moving towards a future, even if they make as many bad moves as good ones and who know how long all this will last.

[Loss]

Which numbers Loss? Merch sales? Cena's are driven by kids who aren't there in great numbers or aren't as loud.

 

And I think we've argued this before but Vince's goal in the last decade has to been to ensure no wrestler is a draw. He's finally succeeded, for better or worse The streak was the last definite draw and look how that ended, not with a bang but a whimper.

 

We're literally back to the mid 90's where nobody really draws and have been for ten years. And will continue to be until someone comes up with a truly hot idea.

 

Well, I think merchandise sales numbers have no place in drawing discussions personally because we don't have exact figures. Until we do, I don't think we should factor them in. I realize they play a part in decision making within the company, but we don't get to see those numbers, so I'm not sure how much we can say about them.

 

The only consistent metric we can use to compare wrestlers of any era is the live gate. PPV is a logical extension of the live gate, because it was basically selling an event to an audience unlimited by size or geography, so I think that's a fair comparison too.

[Loss]

Sorry for the multiple posts but I keep having additional thoughts.

 

We talk about PPV buys, but we don't always talk about PPV clearance. We talk about television ratings, but we don't talk about Nielsen expanding their sample size or fluctuation in the number of homes that have cable television. We talk about Wrestlemania XIX doing a low buyrate, but cultural factors like the start of the Iraq war are rarely discussed (whether that's part of the reason for the low number of buys or not). We talk about merchandise sales, but we rarely talk about what the merchandise looks like, how long it has been out or how well it has been promoted. We talk about house show attendance on old shows, but sadly, we don't have access to the details of local promotion.

 

Here's an example of what I mean. If house show number one in Philadelphia is headlined by Flair vs Sting and does 10,000 off of hype from local radio and TV stations, that says something I guess. But let's say half the undercard no shows, the main event has a terrible finish and the air conditioner goes out halfway through the event. Two weeks later, the local TV station moves the NWA TV show from Saturdays at 7PM to Tuesdays at 1AM. Let's say the next month is headlined by Flair vs Luger without the strong local promotion and does 6,000, does that mean Sting is a bigger draw than Luger? We would usually say yes, which I think is the ultimate example of living in the wrestling bubble.

 

Is it fair to say that discussions about drawing are usually based around the unspoken assumption that wrestling fans always go to what they want to see, and always avoid what they don't want to see? Is it also fair to say that we always assume that it's what is headlining the card that night that determines whether or not people attend, previous experiences with the promotion or venue be damned? Is that even fair?

 

I remember when I was a kid there was a house show in October 1988 that I really wanted to attend and couldn't because I was grounded for lying about breaking a piece of furniture. In April 1989, the company returned. The first lineup did more for me, even though I went to the second one in person. I suppose conventional logic would mean that I saw the April 1989 show as more appealing. That's wrestling bubble logic, I think. People attend/purchase or don't attend/purchase shows for all sorts of reasons that have little or nothing to do with what's happening on the show.

[BillThompson]

Yes, I think drawing is extremely overrated, and for me it's a metric I don't even take into account. I will take into account how over a guy seems to be with the crowd, but I don't care how he/she actually drew as a talent. That is something reserved for the actual money making aspect of the business, not the side that I believe truly matters, which is the artistic aspect of the medium.

[KrisZ]

This can go for various forms of entertainment.....

 

Country music now is probably the worst it's ever been...serious garbage compared to stuff 20-40 years ago and it's become basically Southern Pop. Nelly, T-Pain, & Ludacris is on country songs right now but......country music is bigger now than ever as they have crossed over to a much broader audience including young women who are driving the business like a freight train.

 

The young women loving it also brings in young dudes because they want to get laid so the cash cow is in full effect.

 

If you want to do big business you have to sacrifice artistic integrity to do it most of the time.

 

As wrestling fans we really shouldn't care about who is drawing money but the problem is that if our favorites aren't doing that then they won't be pushed as high as we think they should and then when some of the guys get to another level and they aren't what they used to be then we become the guys who shit on bands for "selling out"

[DR Ackermann]

Another reason fans care about who is and isn't drawing is because some wrestlers are given certain opportunities more often than others. If they draw better than the wrestler who is more artistically appealing to those fans then it can be justified. If they don't draw better than or as well as the wrestler that the fans find more appealing then there is possibly a big disconnect within the company. Drawing is also a matter of booking and the same logic applies. There's frustration when fans see a company putting out crap that doesn't have the numbers to justify it as opposed to a more quality product that could do the same or better business. Wrestling is entertaining for us, but its also a business and putting out garbage with no redeeming qualities that doesn't sell is pointless.

[tholzerman]

As much as I ignore the business side of things when I talk about wrestling, I'd be foolish to say drawing was overrated. Companies have to stay open in order for the stuff I'm interested in like wrestling, promos, and the artistic side to happen, right? So it's really, really important.

 

But, it's not the only thing that matters, and I do think people oftentimes have agendas when designating who or what draws.

[funkdoc]

i'm too lazy to rewrite my posts from the 92 WCW vs. WWF thread right now, but basically i think there can be value in looking at someone's drawing power if they were in a position to draw during a hot period. if there is a drastic dropoff that can't easily be explained elsewhere, you may have something to look into. that doesn't happen all that often, though.

 

even before i discovered this place, i tended to have a problem with the way most online fans would just repeat the meltzer dogma of main-eventers being the only guys who draw money. for years, it seemed to me that there were multiple ways someone could be a draw, and fans would only fixate on the most obvious one. merchandise is a good angle that i would be interested in if we had solid numbers, and i also think there is a lot to be said for midcard acts that appeal to audiences who don't normally watch wrestling. i always thought the hardys were a draw going by the latter point, but nobody ever seemed to acknowledge them as such because "midcarders don't draw".

 

and as i also discussed in that thread, i think drawing is largely out of the power of individual wrestlers anyway. vader & bret have been brought up here, but i would argue that transplanting stone cold steve austin into those promotions wouldn't have moved the needle long-term either. US wrestling needed years for the stench of all the sex & drug scandals to disappear, and needed to freshen up its overall "feel". ECW provided the template for wrestling in the 90s, the nWo and WWF Attitude took that to a national level, and dennis rodman/karl malone/mike tyson made the mainstream media take a look at this New Wrestling. stone cold was still key, but i would argue more for *keeping* those new viewers than for drawing them in. and i would argue that more people than just austin could have fulfilled that role, though WCW had most of the good candidates then and the WWF roster was awfully thin in 97-early 98.

 

really, the most successful drawing formula seems to be: total change in presentation to match the aesthetics of the decade + involvement from relevant celebrities + charismatic star to keep people watching. that's a whole lot that doesn't have to do with any particular wrestler! heck, 80s WWF fit this to a tee as well...do you think for a second that they get on SNL and sell those mania tickets without mr. t?

 

to get to perhaps my most controversial point in all of this, let's continue with the 80s WWF theme. i genuinely believe that if the WWF hadn't signed hogan and gone with sgt. slaughter as the face of the company, they would have done 80-90% as well and the general wrestling boom would have happened anyway. you need a main-event guy who can entertain people in the ring and with his character, while (most importantly) being reliable and staying out of trouble. though hogan was the best man for the job, what made him uniquely important wasn't his talent so much as the fact that most of the other really charismatic babyfaces they had or considered signing (junkyard dog, jimmy snuka, kerry von erich) had major drug problems and would absolutely have flamed out in that kind of spotlight. slaughter was the one exception and was capable of all of this himself, which is why i highlight him in this hypothetical.

 

basically, i think there are so many factors in play that it's too hard to solidly judge an individual wrestler's drawing power. if the promotion as a whole is weak and stagnant, no individual wrestler can save it. and when all the other pieces are in place, you don't need your ace to be peyton manning - in my view, a matt ryan will more than suffice. heck, i might argue that 97 sting was a "matt ryan", and we know how that worked out...

[Dylan Waco]

There is a lot to address here, but first I want to note that I think drawing power tends to be less important to me when thinking about workers or matches than it does for a lot of people who say they find drawing power boring, pointless, irrelevant, et. to discuss. I'll explain why I believe that to be true later in this post, but note that I think drawing power is interesting to analyze because I am interesting in wrestling history. Whether or not something draws really doesn't matter to me at all when analyzing a worker, though understanding the idea of drawing cards can help explain why your favorite indie guy can't get signed, or why certain guys constantly get pushed. Of course it's not a science, and there are all sorts of issues with sample size that Loss discussed above, but I don't think those issues are related solely to the issue of drawing power (more on that later).

 

I've got a TON to say about this, but I want to start by responding to this part of funkdoc's post from the other thread:

 

"not drawing" really means "couldn't interest a particular audience at a particular point in time", and i don't think that in itself should be a negative. it can be a useful *indicator* of other issues at times, mainly if something didn't draw during a hot period for business (see the mr. perfect example from before), but i think it's drastically overused as a metric when dealing with overall down periods. this is why i think there is value in performances that remain entertaining & compelling 20 years after the fact, even if they didn't draw a dime at the time!

 

and this could be a thread in itself, but i think the impact of specific top stars on drawing power is huuuuuuuugely overrated. it reflects the same thought process as the whole Great Man conception of history, which has countless holes if you examine it in depth. you do need a main-eventer who can reach a certain baseline in various traits (look, personality, etc.), but i think wider cultural trends and the presentation of the overall product are bigger factors in a promotion's mainstream success. basically i don't think sting & vader, or even ron simmons, were the problem for WCW - the problem was a culture hostile to pro wrestling and (key difference from the WWF) a show with a very low-rent/"southern" feel to it. during a time when power rangers & mortal kombat ruled the world, most kids wouldn't be caught dead watching "that redneck shit" or the 80s cartoon style of the WWF.

 

I want to try and take this in order so I'll number it and go from there.

 

1. I think if you are talking about a workers skills as an "artist" or "in ring talent" or even in many cases their influence then not being able to interest a particular audience at a particular time has to be seen as a negative when thinking about the historical significance of a talent. It does not necessarily mean that wrestler is a failure because there are a multitude of ways to think about, discuss and appreciate talents that have nothing to do with putting butts in the seats. But if we are looking at things from a historical perspective the inability to draw when positioned to draw should matter.

 

2. I agree that there is value in great performances that stand the test of time regardless of how they drew. I thought 1986 AWA was tremendous from an in ring perspective, but they couldn't draw jackshit. 1992 WCW is one of my favorite years ever for a promotion, and lord knows as a kid I thought Sting was a huge star, but they drew worse than 1986 AWA. The fact that these promotions were commercial failures at the time does not make me like them any less, just like some of my favorite records of all time were by bands that never made it big, or bombed when they signed to major labels. Having said that I am very skeptical of the notion that down periods should just be written off as down periods, and that the parties involved are blameless pawns who were trapped in situations where there was no possible path to success. There are many reasons I am skeptical of this, but the number one reason is that these periods don't always last forever. Sure promotions spiral into disaster and end up going out of business. But others have down periods and then heat back up. Yes it is true that many great talents have been wasted, hurt, et. by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. To me that may mean a lot of different things depending on the situation, but I don't think it means that not drawing and/or drawing doesn't matter. I hate to use Sting every time this comes up, but the low point of WCW being his reign as the top face/ace means something, even if it isn't a completely negative reflection on him.

 

3. I'd be interested to hear who you think are overrated as draws. I think there is a lot more to drawing than just looking at a handful of big gates. I think you have to follow trends and consider the whole package. There are feuds and angles that modern fans wouldn't look at on paper and think "that was a drawing feud" because of bias', the way certain people have been portrayed, card placement, et. For example AWA feuds like The High Flyers v. The Sheiks or even Bobby Heenan v. Buck Zumhoffe were presented in such a fashion that I think when you look at the hot period in the AWA that they coincided with, you have to consider them part of the package that drew even if they didn't go on last. This is where watching the matches, knowing the context, et. matters. When Jumbo Tsuruta was champion in the AWA he often was on the "main event" slot but he wasn't positioned in angles/feuds/programs that were hot. Now one argument is that when promotions are hot and the culture is a certain way it doesn't really matter who is on top. But I don't really buy that because for the most part you can spot ups and downs, not all feuds do the same, et. I also think there is something to those who maintained promotional health. I wouldn't say Bob Backlund was a bigger deal than Bruno, but I also think it's wrong to say Backlund wasn't a draw just because the WWWF machine was so strong.

 

4. If 80's cartoon style WWF wasn't going to draw in the 90's, how come WCW was turned around by a Savage v. Flair feud and Hulk Hogan on top? If "southern/redneck" wrestling was the problem for WCW, how come SMW was outdrawing them in shared markets with a 50th of their budget, and only a couple of stars of any note? Mind you I'm not entirely dismissive of this point of view, but I think it's far too simplistic. Culture is one factor. "Great men" are too (and this is coming from someone who is almost reflexively opposed to the "great men" theory of history).

 

To Loss' point, I agree with the general point he is making but I also believe in following trends. I think you can follow trends and generally see who the great draws were, or even who the valuable opponents were beyond just the big aces/faces of promotions. I think my Patera research shows this, or at least strongly suggests it. Yes there are issues with sample size, changing baselines, et, but that doesn't mean we can't learn something about who was or wasn't a draw. To me that's like arguing that you can't really know how good a wrestler is because we don't have all of their house show matches on tape, and he may be phoning it out there, or benefiting from agents who spicen up the matches for t.v. Drawing IS more subjective than some would have you believe, but it's not so subjective that we can't look at the facts that exists in many cases and arrive at reasonable conclusions.

 

This brings me to what will probably be taken as a controversial point. For all the research I've done about drawing power over recent years, I am still a guy who loves random indie feds that take place in front of a few dozen people. I'm a guy that a couple of years ago was arguing Chris Masters as a top ten worker in the world based almost exclusively on 8-12 minutes matches on Superstars. One of the most common criticisms I hear from people when I talk up these C-show or random indie workers and matches is some variant of "the crowds don't care" or "it's easy to have these meaningless good matches, it's much harder to do twenty-five minute main events." I generally don't care that much about crowds (they can help a match for sure, but they almost never hurt a match for me) and I am not sold on the second argument either (having Pat Paterson lay things out for you move for move, and having the benefit of hot angles hardly seems like a disadvantage to me), but the point is that the size of the crowd, the crowds caring, the positioning on the cards, are all things that are at least theoretically related to drawing power. Are they the same thing? No. But when people talk about how they can't get invested in something that doesn't feel big time, I think that argument about presentation is very closely linked to the idea of drawing, if not drawing itself. Maybe I'm wrong and that's my own bias talking, but I generally think I care less about drawing power and/or stardom in wrestling matches, than many people who are on record saying they don't give a shit about drawing power at all.

[Dylan Waco]

Which numbers Loss? Merch sales? Cena's are driven by kids who aren't there in great numbers or aren't as loud.

 

And I think we've argued this before but Vince's goal in the last decade has to been to ensure no wrestler is a draw. He's finally succeeded, for better or worse The streak was the last definite draw and look how that ended, not with a bang but a whimper.

 

We're literally back to the mid 90's where nobody really draws and have been for ten years. And will continue to be until someone comes up with a truly hot idea.

 

Funny enough the draws you can track and point to right now are guys like Chris Hero and AJ Styles who have really helped a dying indie scene, with both guys drawing record houses for multiple promotions, and Styles in particular headlining several of the biggest non-WWE shows of the year. It's odd to say the least

[funkdoc]

oh man, i was waiting for dylan to pop in here and he didn't disappoint! i want to sleep but can't atm, so i'll try and address some of this...

 

i don't particularly disagree with point 1 at all. i just don't have a personal interest in that side of things and don't see a reason it *has* to be an interest for anyone. my years of sports fandom have given me all the "GOAT" debates i need for ten lifetimes, and it's even more aggravating to me when we can't make statistics the core argument like we often can in sports. i do admit to an interest in the *worst* wrestlers of all time by all relevant metrics, including crowd response, and i like seeing conventional wisdom get debunked wrt drawing power. that's about it anymore!

 

point 2 is definitely the meatiest one for me here, and i'll answer a bit of point 4 here as well. in all my arguments here, i've used "drawing" to mean "breaking through to a more mainstream audience" as this is what i am used to that term meaning. this was definitely a mistake on my part, so thanks for pointing that out! in my other posts i talk about the value of celebrities in helping a promotion accomplish this, and i would argue that hogan in WCW was a smaller version of the mr. t/mike tyson effect. the other examples mentioned by you and others are trickier, but i tend to see those as pulling in lapsed fans who are still kinda in the bubble or had just recently been in the bubble. it's definitely a different phenomenon from the major booms that i've tended to focus on, and something i have not thought about nearly as much - those are cases where i can see individual talent mattering more, since everything is on a smaller scale.

 

to finish point 2...again, i think my last post sheds more light on why down periods don't last forever. i tend to see updating your "feel" to fit your era as a bigger piece than any star wrestler, though wrestlers can of course be a part of this. sting in the "superhero ace" role stood out as such a terrible actor even in wrestling that i could see him turning away some potential fans - i just think the structural issues and cultural atmosphere were bigger problems. i realize that i probably implied i didn't think sting was *a* problem at all, which was not what i meant. apologies if that is the case!

 

as for point 3, this is also something i address in my last post. basically i think guys on top in the hottest periods are inevitably overrated to some degree. not to say that hogan & austin weren't great draws, as i still believe both were the best guys for their respective jobs, but there is no way i buy them being the ONLY guys who could have pulled it off. i talk about this specifically with hogan vs. slaughter in the 80s, complete with an easy sports analogy. it's not that it doesn't matter at all who's on top, it's that you don't necessarily need the best possible guy - you need a well-rounded enough performer who can be trusted to show up every night and not cause PR problems for the company. i find it interesting that the latter seems to be the rarer skill in wrestling...

 

also regarding point 3, i absolutely agree with you on which matches can be draws. in fact, in my last post here i harp on the fans who blindly assume that only main-eventers draw money! guys like the hardys in the attitude era are what i tend to think of here - midcard acts attracting an audience who doesn't normally watch wrestling. your examples wouldn't necessarily fit into that but are sound in their own way!

 

i don't think there is a whole ton left to discuss for point 4 since we've covered a lot of this ground already. i happen to know a bit about your political views, and i suspect that our respective worldviews heavily color this part of it. i tend to see damn near every societal issue or scandal as the product of power structures and sheer chance far more than individuals. shouldn't need to say too much more about where this would lead and what a deep rabbit hole this would be for a wrestling forum!

 

 

OK i am getting tired so this will be it for tonight. thank you all once again for the discussion here! =)

[goc]

On the flip side, I hear about something like Donald Trump breaking records at Wrestlemania 23. I wouldn't know that was something special or really hot unless someone told me so, because it didn't feel like anything special at the time. I didn't have that feeling watching it that we were witnessing this iconic event. CM Punk cutting a semi-shoot promo in 2011 felt like a much bigger deal, but didn't draw at that level. I haven't heard anyone come up with a good explanation for those types of differences, when the numbers just don't match what we experienced. Similarly, if John Cena is hated by most live audiences for TV tapings and Daniel Bryan looks more over than anyone since the days of Steve Austin, why don't the numbers match what we are seeing in both directions? It's puzzling. You always hear stories of promoters going under by living and dying by crowd reaction, but why does such a disparity even exist? In theory, the things people pay to see are the things they are most excited about, right?

I wouldn't say that I understand it, but I think there is a clear difference between the live audience and the TV audience. The live audience shit all over Batista coming back but his return drew a huge rating for Raw. I suppose you could call it the old "casual fan vs. hardcore fan" argument that the hardcores are the ones buying tickets to see the live events and the casual just watches it like any other TV show.

 

As far back as like 96 Meltzer was writing about how Shawn Michaels as WWF champ had been a good boost for house show business but was tanking TV ratings and seemed to actively drive people to watch Nitro.

[Timbo Slice]

This is one of those subjective measures that I always go back and forth on when thinking about how I value wrestlers. Even remember talking to Dylan about this exact thing about a year ago when talking about subjects he'd like to bring me on to talk about on Wrestling Culture, where we were going to try and figure out some type of metric to try and value who was the best wrestler a company had. We had an idea about in-ring work, but drawing was always difficult because the matches at the top of the card weren't necessarily the drawing matches, especially in companies like ECW.

 

The examples Loss brought up of Trump and Punk basically tell you the story: Punk's promo was an acknowledgement of the scope today's wrestling fan can pull from, where Punk threw in every "insider" reference he could think of in a promo. It popped people for being new, and the longtime wrestling fans who were in the know dug it big time. The draw, however, came by capitalizing on it in Chicago. Because of that atmosphere, there should have been a pretty good term of drawing for Punk, but it never came to be the way WWE wanted it to, which is why he got shuffled back down a bit. It wasn't really a big draw.

 

Trump pulled in people from outside the wrestling scope, obviously, which in turn made him the big draw even though his match wasn't that high up the card.

 

The theory that people pay for what they're most excited about holds true somewhat. If you go back through the cards in the past, there are a lot of things down in the card that drew more than what was on top as a special attraction.

 

The biggest thing that I've noticed is that as time moved on, it wasn't really about one draw at the top of the card. It really has become the product. Bryan is over with live crowds because as far as what WWE puts out on a week to week basis, he's considered the best guy they have at this point. But he doesn't really draw people in as much as he just excites the crowd that is already there (which is a lot like what The Shield has done, the Wyatts, etc.). He does have crossover appeal, and that's really apparent, but the only appeal that matters is the stuff that brings in more money to the company. Bryan has gotten them some mainstream attention, but that hasn't translated to dollar signs.

 

The numbers don't match because at the end of the day, the machine has been built and it's going to run as it is. The Network is their newest revenue stream and it's going to be the foundation for their programming, but the actual process of drawing money has changed so much that I don't think drawing power is a worthwhile metric anymore due to the overexposure wrestling has at this point. The wrestlers have become less and less important in terms of drawing.

[kjh]

On the flip side, I hear about something like Donald Trump breaking records at Wrestlemania 23. I wouldn't know that was something special or really hot unless someone told me so, because it didn't feel like anything special at the time. I didn't have that feeling watching it that we were witnessing this iconic event. CM Punk cutting a semi-shoot promo in 2011 felt like a much bigger deal, but didn't draw at that level. I haven't heard anyone come up with a good explanation for those types of differences, when the numbers just don't match what we experienced.

 

Punk's promo may have drawn a lot of hardcore fan buzz, but it didn't cross over into the mainstream. Trump vs. McMahon hair vs. hair did, more so than any other program in recent history. More people were also watching those segments in 2007 too.

[Loss]

I have no recollection of said mainstream coverage. I'm looking for proof outside of numbers -- incredibly heated or memorable or well-booked segments that set up that match. I only know it was a big deal because people tell me it was, but it wasn't something I saw for myself. That's what I mean. I was paying attention and watching everything at the time, and it seemed like just another Wrestlemania. What mainstream coverage was there that normally isn't? What buzz was there? All I remember is a fake Donald vs fake Rosie segment on Raw that bombed miserably, to the point that the live audience was chanting for TNA and Vince had to no-sell it. That doesn't sound like something that is going to break PPV records.

 

The buzz that was there at the time that I recall was that Shawn and Undertaker were resurgent, and people were excited about the main event scene involving those guys, Cena and Batista. And that's my point -- why is there no standout buzz for things that end up drawing, where things that do have buzz don't seem to be that important?

 

Outside of the Entertainment Tonight-type shows, what mainstream buzz was there for Trump and Vince? I never saw any of it, so I'm asking.

[Johnny Sorrow]

On the day AFTER Mania, they had bald Vince and Trump on the Today show, which surprised me.

Oh and as far as babyface Shawn as champ goes, I was flipping to Nitro as well but not because of Shawn. Because of the rest of the RAW being shitty and Nitro being something new.

[Matt Farmer]

In my opinion it is vastly underrated by the IWC. Especially in the 5 or 6 years where it seems eveyone has a hard on for "work rate". Drawing money is the foundation for what professional wrestling is all about.

 

In years past if you were to over hear shoot discussions among wrestlers, every conversation regarding wrestling would lead to weather something drew or not. During this discussion they usually would not ask about the number of people, but what was in the gate. Everything else in the business is secondary.

 

Of course businesses change, but the goal is still the same and that is to generate money. This generation of "wrestlers" have lost site of that goal, even in the indy world. These self proclaimed promoters seem more interested in having good shows, when their priority should be increasing their revenue.

 

Everything else in wrestling is subjective. We all have different ideas on what is good or bad, but one thing that is not subjective is generating income. And everything leads back to one goal, revenue.