do we need era adjustments for drawing power?

[funkdoc]

alright yall, this is a thread idea that's been kicking around in my head for a while now...

 

so usually when you see people debate various wrestlers' effectiveness as draws, there tends to just be a focus on the amount of money in itself and how much people worked on top in promotions that did well.

 

this approach always felt funny to me, but i really got motivated once i saw parv discuss dominic denucci vs. mick foley and how they might be equal as draws. i immediately thought "wait, was denucci EVER one of the 10 biggest wrestling stars worldwide? because foley definitely was at one point. alright, this is kinda silly and i need to talk about it."

 

the idea that it was a gajillion times easier to be a legitimate draw in the territory days isn't exactly news, yes. but usually i see people just acknowledge it then judge the results anyway. this rubs me the wrong way because i've long been into sabermetrics (the advanced statistical analysis of sports), and they take the opposite approach.

 

it seems like even on a forum such as this one, people take the numbers to mean that today's wrestlers just don't have the ability that the ones from the past did. in sports, what we've found is that major generational differences in output aren't a result of the players getting better or worse - they're a result of the changing conditions of the game. many baseball writers in the 60s thought the hitters of that decade were a bunch of bums since pitching was *extremely* dominant - turned out that the real issues were things like MLB not enforcing certain rules, such that it massively helped out pitching.

 

over the years, sports statisticians have developed various methods of what we call "era adjustments", i.e. looking at how impressive a player's raw numbers are within his own era. i am very much of the opinion that doing the same in wrestling would lead to fairer evaluations of the performers...but is that what we should even be trying here?

 

would like to hear your thoughts on this =)

[WingedEagle]

Yes. And good luck to anyone who thinks it can be approximated. Different eras, options, economics, opportunities, audiences, etc., etc., etc. all impact what draws. Would Austin have drawn as much business today as he did in '98? I don't know. Perhaps that character isn't as fresh in 2015 as it was in '98 and with the watering down of TV through hundreds of channels, the internet, phones/tablets it wouldn't have been such a ratings draw. And that's before you try to extrapolate PPV numbers from then into today's Network era. Fun to think about though.

[overbooked]

I have no idea how to go about it, but some sort of equivalent to Wins Above Replacement in baseball could be interesting. Essentially work out some sort of average draw for a period or territory and then see if a wrestler drew more or less from that. I guess then you'd have to quantify it in a way that enabled proper comparisons between eras and territories, and make adjustments for anything that didn't look right - for example, does improving a gate by 25 per cent mean more when you're drawing 20,000 than improving a gate by 30 per cent when you're drawing 10,000? Or something...

[cheapshot]

[Quentin Skinner]

This is something that I've always found very interesting and I would love to think of a way to try to compare guys fairly. I definitely feel like it's not accurate to hold the guys from this era to the same drawing standards as you would for the era of people running events once a month at MSG or the champ being sent to work another territory and being expected to get it hot where ever they get sent.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think you can make the argument that Bruno was a better draw than Hogan.

[cheapshot]

I think you can make the argument that Bruno was a better draw than Hogan.

 

Please Parv, make it. I am all ears.

[jushin muta liger]

THE MOOKIE SIGNAL!

[JerryvonKramer]

 

I think you can make the argument that Bruno was a better draw than Hogan.

 

Please Parv, make it. I am all ears.

Bruno sold out the garden or near enough for about twenty years, month on month. There were some down periods, but he consistently drew 15,000+ at MSG from the mid-60s on and often 20,000+.

 

He was equally as consistent in Philly, Boston, Pittsburgh and other WWF secondary markets. Month on month, year on year.

 

Hogan was a case of diminishing returns. I'll give you a good example. When I went to see TNA a couple of years ago, a lot of the crowd was there to see Hogan, just one time. If they'd come back in a month, how many of the same people would turn out to see Hogan again? "Well I've seen him now"

 

Hogan was the circus coming to town. You don't see the circus every month. So yeah, he can draw you a big house once, but can he do it next month, and the month after? Even in 1986, they brought Bruno back to pick up some flagging local house show numbers. Hogan pops a gate, but he was a novelty act and novelty wears thin after a while. It worked because next month he'd be in LA, next month after that he'd be in Toronto, month after that in Texas or wherever.

 

Bruno just worked the same towns again and again and over time the numbers never flagged. He had a special connection with those people in a way Hogan never really did. Hogan is people turning up to see a big star, Bruno is people turning up to see their hero. I think it's a difference.

 

I think the Bruno run is more impressive. People can make similar arguments about Jerry Lawler in Memphis, but Bruno did it on a grander scale. And I don't think Lawler was ever over as a hero to the extent that Bruno was, the fact he worked heel so much is testament to that. Bruno was unturnable.

 

To make the argument he was a better draw than Hogan you have to look at repeat gates for Hogan in the same towns over a period. Look at MSG month on month vs. Bruno over a similar time span.

 

Don't forget that Hogan suffered a dip in business from about 91 to 96. And he had to turn heel to remain relevant. The fans never really turned on Bruno like that. They always wanted to see him, they paid to see him, they cheered for him wildly. This is without going into how Bruno was used to prop up Backlund's gates throughout his time as champ. Shea Stadium is Bruno's gate, not Bob's.

[Loss]

To answer the topic question, yes. Other factors that need to be considered more are amount of local hype and TV penetration, results the last time they were in town (e.g. were there no-shows, false advertising or bad finishes that would make people stop coming?), population base, weather, the local economy (including competing local events, television programs), day of the week and the strength of the undercard. We know who drew and who didn't, and there has always been good factual discussion, but I think it's short-sighted to just say those who didn't draw didn't because they weren't as good at captivating people as those who did. A lot of it is time and place. I say that not to discount those who were successful, but just because I think there's value in looking at the entire picture when we have the amount of information available to us that we can.

[Dylan Waco]

If there is one thing my research into guys like Sting, Patera, Blackwell, et. has taught me it's that you have to look at things holistically. Looking at what match goes on last tells you little because in many promotions the main event wasn't last on the card by design and/or the match that was hottest was second or even third (and occasionally even fourth!) from the top. Talking to fans from the era and watching footage if it is available is a good way to try and balance this stuff out because it gives you a feel for what was hot at the time/what got more of the emphasis on television, but even then it involves some guesswork. Ideally you need to understand a promotions history, the way they structured cards and the promotion, the perceptions of the fans at the time, the way the players were presented on television, the way the show was marketed in other mediums, the way the live crowd reacted (which can be incredibly be deceptive, but is not without value either), and certain other external factors that may have effected certain trends in business. I analyzed the AWA so heavily I think I was able to arrive at certain tentative conclusions (Salt Lake City was their last hot town, Blackwell was a drawing card based on dips and rises associated with his departures and returns, the narrative of AWA collapse coming right after Hogan's absence is nonsense, the High Flyers were one of the top drawing tag teams of the 70s and 80s, et.), but even then I can't say I would feel confident calling them absolute facts.

 

If you are looking at territory era guys, I think the "in demand" nature of talent is often telling. Where guys got main events (both the locations themselves and the diversity of the locations) can give you some good ideas about the perceived value of individual talents or feuds if nothing else. I think you can even see that now on the indie scene where a guy like AJ can come in to a bunch of indies and sell places out/set record houses. Is 370 paid, with a hundreds of people turned away at the door for a promotion in the middle of nowhere with no television and no other stars more impressive than 4000 paid for a WWE show that is very well promoted, filled with t.v. stars, and has the huge advantage of national brand identity? I can't answer that but it's an interesting question if nothing else.

 

A couple of years back a Timbo and myself toyed with the idea of trying to come up with sabermetricish models for wrestling and it went nowhere I think partially because of time/life, but also because it seemed futile. I'm not saying it would be impossible but there are a lot of factors at play, and many of them are not numerically quantifiable.

[funkdoc]

yeah dylan, you were the main guy i thought of who did something akin to what i mean. great to see you posting in here!

 

also that's a real interesting argument parv, and one i could see people going either way on without a clear answer. sort of like the peak vs. career preference in sports, to continue the parallel.

 

i have to head for work now but will try and think of something else to say here later!

[goodhelmet]

I understand Parv's argument but Hogan couldn't come back month after month to MSG and the Spectrum because he was too busy selling out Chicago, L.A. Phoenix, Sacramento, San Diego, Denver, Toronto, Montreal, Cleveland, Cincinnati etc. Could Bruno go nationwide like Hogan did and make the same impact? I am not saying what Bruno did isn't impressive but that what Hogan did was impressive in a completely different way. So fine... Bruno connects to the industrial Northeast crowd. Does he connect to the Midwest? To the West Coast? To the Southwest? To the Rocky Mountains? The Great Plains? Canada?

[Johnny Guitar]

I understand Parv's argument but Hogan couldn't come back month after month to MSG and the Spectrum because he was too busy selling out Chicago, L.A. Phoenix, Sacramento, San Diego, Denver, Toronto, Montreal, Cleveland, Cincinnati etc. Could Bruno go nationwide like Hogan did and make the same impact? I am not saying what Bruno did isn't impressive but that what Hogan did was impressive in a completely different way. So fine... Bruno connects to the industrial Northeast crowd. Does he connect to the Midwest? To the West Coast? To the Southwest? To the Rocky Mountains? The Great Plains? Canada?

 

Also with no disrespect to Bruno. When he was downplaying Hogan and Austin as draws. He wasn't taking into account the PPV business each man drew.

[JerryvonKramer]

I understand Parv's argument but Hogan couldn't come back month after month to MSG and the Spectrum because he was too busy selling out Chicago, L.A. Phoenix, Sacramento, San Diego, Denver, Toronto, Montreal, Cleveland, Cincinnati etc. Could Bruno go nationwide like Hogan did and make the same impact? I am not saying what Bruno did isn't impressive but that what Hogan did was impressive in a completely different way. So fine... Bruno connects to the industrial Northeast crowd. Does he connect to the Midwest? To the West Coast? To the Southwest? To the Rocky Mountains? The Great Plains? Canada?

 

I think it's a fair point. Bruno did draw in Canada though. He was a mainstay for Frank Tunney, and shuttled between New York and Toronto for years.

 

The point is really that Hogan only worked as a national draw. Vince was also pretty smart with his TV appearances, kept him special, always made sure that the people wanted more Hulk and didn't get burned out on him. And even then they did get burned out by 92.

 

I don't know if you could go national with Bruno, but I do think he would have gotten over in pretty much any territory.

[goc]

Hulk pared down his act to the bare minimum because he was a touring act. Hogan in the AWA and the early stages of his WWF run did a whole lot more than Hogan in 88/89. I think you aren't taking into account that Hogan could have adapted his act to stay over as a regional draw. Running the same cities more often didn't stop him from drawing in the AWA.

[JerryvonKramer]

That's true also, although the dips in monthly gates happened during the hot streak of 85-6 when he was closer to his AWA self.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Again, as I've mentioned, by the time Hogan was top the WWF was aimed at kids who had to have their parents buy the tickets and drive them to the shows. If they went to say, the first of a three month series at the Spectrum, chances are next month the parent is gonna say " we did that last month, pick something else to do."

[elliott]

Again, as I've mentioned, by the time Hogan was top the WWF was aimed at kids who had to have their parents buy the tickets and drive them to the shows. If they went to say, the first of a three month series at the Spectrum, chances are next month the parent is gonna say " we did that last month, pick something else to do."

 

Just because something is marketed to kids, it doesn't mean the ticket buying parents can't or won't enjoy it.

 

 

Pee Wee Herman is considered a genius by both of my parents, aunts, uncles, etc. After every episode my mom and our neighbor across the street would walk outside and scream the "word of the day" at each other.

[Johnny Sorrow]

 

 

Again, as I've mentioned, by the time Hogan was top the WWF was aimed at kids who had to have their parents buy the tickets and drive them to the shows. If they went to say, the first of a three month series at the Spectrum, chances are next month the parent is gonna say " we did that last month, pick something else to do."

Just because something is marketed to kids, it doesn't mean the ticket buying parents can't or won't enjoy it.

 

 

Pee Wee Herman is considered a genius by both of my parents, aunts, uncles, etc. After every episode my mom and our neighbor across the street would walk outside and scream the "word of the day" at each other.

Its great that your mom and neighbor were waking and baking on Saturday mornings but what does that have to do with my point? 😃

[goodhelmet]

 

I understand Parv's argument but Hogan couldn't come back month after month to MSG and the Spectrum because he was too busy selling out Chicago, L.A. Phoenix, Sacramento, San Diego, Denver, Toronto, Montreal, Cleveland, Cincinnati etc. Could Bruno go nationwide like Hogan did and make the same impact? I am not saying what Bruno did isn't impressive but that what Hogan did was impressive in a completely different way. So fine... Bruno connects to the industrial Northeast crowd. Does he connect to the Midwest? To the West Coast? To the Southwest? To the Rocky Mountains? The Great Plains? Canada?

I think it's a fair point. Bruno did draw in Canada though. He was a mainstay for Frank Tunney, and shuttled between New York and Toronto for years.

 

The point is really that Hogan only worked as a national draw. Vince was also pretty smart with his TV appearances, kept him special, always made sure that the people wanted more Hulk and didn't get burned out on him. And even then they did get burned out by 92.

 

I don't know if you could go national with Bruno, but I do think he would have gotten over in pretty much any territory.

 

 

Look at that bold line... he was the ONLY national draw. Everyone else was still fragmented. Hogan was a national household name. Only Andre the Giant at the time was even close in being a "national draw". I am not downplaying Bruno's accomplishments the way you downplayed Lawler's but Hulk Hogan was a phenomenon that you had to be around for to truly understand.... at least to a ten year old kid. Maybe old grumpy Hogan haters will have a different take.

[Matt D]

I think it's a different challenge for someone like Lawler or Rose to draw in the same arena week after week after week than someone to go town to town to town and draw based on national TV.

 

Neither of those are Bruno who drew in the same arena every month. That doesn't seem as impressive to me as either of the above.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think it's a different challenge for someone like Lawler or Rose to draw in the same arena week after week after week than someone to go town to town to town and draw based on national TV.

 

Neither of those are Bruno who drew in the same arena every month. That doesn't seem as impressive to me as either of the above.

You make that sound as if selling out The Garden is easy.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

 

I understand Parv's argument but Hogan couldn't come back month after month to MSG and the Spectrum because he was too busy selling out Chicago, L.A. Phoenix, Sacramento, San Diego, Denver, Toronto, Montreal, Cleveland, Cincinnati etc. Could Bruno go nationwide like Hogan did and make the same impact? I am not saying what Bruno did isn't impressive but that what Hogan did was impressive in a completely different way. So fine... Bruno connects to the industrial Northeast crowd. Does he connect to the Midwest? To the West Coast? To the Southwest? To the Rocky Mountains? The Great Plains? Canada?

 

I think it's a fair point. Bruno did draw in Canada though. He was a mainstay for Frank Tunney, and shuttled between New York and Toronto for years.The point is really that Hogan only worked as a national draw. Vince was also pretty smart with his TV appearances, kept him special, always made sure that the people wanted more Hulk and didn't get burned out on him. And even then they did get burned out by 92.

I don't know if you could go national with Bruno, but I do think he would have gotten over in pretty much any territory.

Look at that bold line... he was the ONLY national draw. Everyone else was still fragmented. Hogan was a national household name. Only Andre the Giant at the time was even close in being a "national draw". I am not downplaying Bruno's accomplishments the way you downplayed Lawler's but Hulk Hogan was a phenomenon that you had to be around for to truly understand.... at least to a ten year old kid. Maybe old grumpy Hogan haters will have a different take.

I don't actually disagree with this Will. My point was that "an argument can be made" for Bruno over Hogan.

[goc]

 

I think it's a different challenge for someone like Lawler or Rose to draw in the same arena week after week after week than someone to go town to town to town and draw based on national TV.

 

Neither of those are Bruno who drew in the same arena every month. That doesn't seem as impressive to me as either of the above.

You make that sound as if selling out The Garden is easy.

 

I would think with it's massive population base to draw from it would be easier to fill than say, the 10,000 seat Mid-South Coliseum on a weekly basis.