kjh Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Yeah, there's no curiosity in seeing a pro wrestler wrestle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 As I've been thinking about it another issue is that it's probably a waste of time for WWE to try and entice back the PPV buying audience that they've lost over the last decade. Just like WCW fans largely stopped watching wrestling after the company closed shop, they've found something new to do with their lives. You may be able to get them back for the Rumble and WrestleMania, but they're not going to watch past that. They may have fun watching for that night, but they'll also have reminders about why they stopped watching regularly in the first place. Also, the ratings going back to pre Mania levels suggested that Brock's return wasn't going to spike PPV buys past the upper level for a B show they're at right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 I think there was a curiosity factor for the diehards on how they would present Brock, how his style has changed, how they were going to book the thing, etc. I don't think that it was enough, necessarily, to warrant a buy a month after the inflated Mania price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 PPV can work but only in short doses. They need to go back to 4 PPV's a year and I think they are going to do that after the Network launches Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Liska Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Dana White did an interview with Ariel Helwani where he accused Dave of being a mouthpiece for Spike and Bellator, being given UFC ratings numbers by them to write negative pieces in the Observer. We all know how crazy that is. I do have to admit to enjoying this a little bit after all of these years of hearing about how UFC is doing pro wrestling better than pro wrestling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Dana White did an interview with Ariel Helwani where he accused Dave of being a mouthpiece for Spike and Bellator, being given UFC ratings numbers by them to write negative pieces in the Observer. We all know how crazy that is. I do have to admit to enjoying this a little bit after all of these years of hearing about how UFC is doing pro wrestling better than pro wrestling. Yeah I think long suffering PRO WRESTLING readers of the Observer will tell you Dave has primarily championed MMA and UFC since the post-2005 boom for page after page. 6 1/2 minute mark if anyone is interest: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Dana White trolling Meltzer is pretty awesome. Meltzer so rarely gets mad about anything, I think he's just poking him to see if he can make him angry Also, the Extreme Rules buyrate really isn't indicative of the drawing potential Lesnar had. It was in the same billing cycle as the $60+ WM, plus a week after Jones v. Evans. How many people can afford a $250 cable bill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 The Extreme Rules buyrate isn't about Brock's drawing ability or lack thereof. For the B-shows, nothing is a draw. If they had built up Cena/Lesnar for Summerslam, it might have meant something. But so much for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Well, some people thought it was a good idea to rush through stuff with Lesnar to get "the most out of him right away". Some people thought Cena beating Lesnar was a good idea too. Where's the "burning money" banner again ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Dana must think Dave is in bed with Spike TV due to TNA. Only way I can logically explain such delusional nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 One could argue that it may have made more sense to wait on Brock v. Cena for Summerslam, but I think you have to be pretty deluded to think that would have done a uniquely glorious buyrate in today's ppv landscape, with the crop of WWE writers being who they are. I suppose it's possible the show might have done slightly better than average, but the notion that Brock by a miracle from god would became one of the great draws in wrestling history out of the blue if only they had held off for a few months on the match is..well..acid is an interesting drug. Lesnar was never worth that money for a variety of reasons (too high risk, only a VERY limited of guys on the roster he can believably work, no real record as a wrestling draw, et). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 One could argue that it may have made more sense to wait on Brock v. Cena for Summerslam, but I think you have to be pretty deluded to think that would have done a uniquely glorious buyrate in today's ppv landscape, with the crop of WWE writers being who they are. I suppose it's possible the show might have done slightly better than average, but the notion that Brock by a miracle from god would became one of the great draws in wrestling history out of the blue if only they had held off for a few months on the match is..well..acid is an interesting drug. I don't think anyone here is saying Brock would have made a monstruous, historical buyrate anyway. Especially since like you said the writers suck anyway and they can't book to save their life. Still, Brock vs Cena built for the second biggest show of the year would have made probably a bigger buyrate than normal, and it was common sense to at least *try* to make the most out of him. Instead, they hotshot the big match on the B-PPV following a ridiculous WM. Lesnar was probably not worth that kind of money, especially in non-competitive landscape, but they did exactly the contrary of what they should have done to at least try, just try to make the most out of the investment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cox Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Also, the Extreme Rules buyrate really isn't indicative of the drawing potential Lesnar had. It was in the same billing cycle as the $60+ WM, plus a week after Jones v. Evans. How many people can afford a $250 cable bill?Not sure I buy that. Wrestlemania 2000 and Backlash 2000 were in the same billing cycle as well, and Backlash did an amazing buyrate for the return of Steve Austin, and Austin wasn't even wrestling. If this was a main event that captured the wrestling audience's attention, they would have bought the PPV. They didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 SummerSlam buys in North America: 2011 - Cena vs. Punk, Triple H as referee 177,000 buys 2010 - Team Raw vs. Nexus 203,000 buys 2009 - Punk vs. Jeff Hardy ladder match, Cena vs. Orton 229,000 buys 2008 - Undertaker vs. Edge Hell In A Cell 301,000 buys The numbers really back up Dylan's analysis. Given that SummerSlam hasn't done a good buy rate the last three years, I think if they had held back they'd likely only seen a similar 39,000 buy boost, maybe marginally higher due to the name value of the PPV. It's better to get two bites at the cherry in this case. As this year's SummerSlam is likely going to be up somewhat too and Extreme Rules may have been down compared to last year without Brock on the show, you would have to really buck the PPV trend and get close to 2008 level numbers to have made it worth your while holding off for so long. It's worth noting that the Nexus angle started off hotter than Brock's return was, but by the time they got to SummerSlam the angle had cooled off and they drew a worse buy rate than the year before. That wouldn't have happened here, but today's WWE isn't very good at stretching out an angle for many months, so there wouldn't be much benefit waiting unless you wait all the way till WrestleMania. I really think Dave is a bit behind the curve, fans don't see SummerSlam as a particularly major show anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Is Summerslam more expensive than a normal PPV? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Also, the Extreme Rules buyrate really isn't indicative of the drawing potential Lesnar had. It was in the same billing cycle as the $60+ WM, plus a week after Jones v. Evans. How many people can afford a $250 cable bill?Not sure I buy that. Wrestlemania 2000 and Backlash 2000 were in the same billing cycle as well, and Backlash did an amazing buyrate for the return of Steve Austin, and Austin wasn't even wrestling. If this was a main event that captured the wrestling audience's attention, they would have bought the PPV. They didn't. It's 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Is Summerslam more expensive than a normal PPV? Not where I get them anyway..... But I think so, yes. Maybe I'm mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Is Summerslam more expensive than a normal PPV? Not where I get them anyway..... But I think so, yes. Maybe I'm mistaken. Only WM is higher priced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Dana White did an interview with Ariel Helwani where he accused Dave of being a mouthpiece for Spike and Bellator, being given UFC ratings numbers by them to write negative pieces in the Observer. We all know how crazy that is. I do have to admit to enjoying this a little bit after all of these years of hearing about how UFC is doing pro wrestling better than pro wrestling. This is really odd. Has Dave's rather harmless style of reporting gotten that far under the skin of Dana that he went back for a second bite at the apple? John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 I suppose you could argue that they couldn't do a long-term build because the writers would have screwed it up. But it's difficult to imagine them coming up with anything worse than what actually happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted May 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Dana White did an interview with Ariel Helwani where he accused Dave of being a mouthpiece for Spike and Bellator, being given UFC ratings numbers by them to write negative pieces in the Observer. We all know how crazy that is. I do have to admit to enjoying this a little bit after all of these years of hearing about how UFC is doing pro wrestling better than pro wrestling. This is really odd. Has Dave's rather harmless style of reporting gotten that far under the skin of Dana that he went back for a second bite at the apple? John That reminds me of the height of petty - Vince Russo accusing Dave of being on the WWF payroll for not liking his WCW booking in 2000, with Ryder and Scherer eventually following his lead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Actually, the height of petty is Vince in his Congressional testimony saying that a piece by Frank Deford about deaths in wrestling was due to Deford holding a grudge over Vince having stolen his shoes at a party 16 years previous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregor Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 So Vince admitted that he'd stolen another man's shoes at a party? What exactly did he say? It's not that I don't believe you; I just can't wrap my head around Vince deciding that he needed that famous sportswriter's shoes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 So Vince admitted that he'd stolen another man's shoes at a party? What exactly did he say? It's not that I don't believe you; I just can't wrap my head around Vince deciding that he needed that famous sportswriter's shoes. Supposedly it happened at a bowling party for a mutual friend of Vince and Deford's. If I recall correctly, it was Vince and maybe Pat Patterson who made off with Deford AND his wife's shoes, forcing them to walk back to their car with only one shoe each. Vince was, reportedly so, of course drunk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eduardo Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 So Vince admitted that he'd stolen another man's shoes at a party? What exactly did he say? It's not that I don't believe you; I just can't wrap my head around Vince deciding that he needed that famous sportswriter's shoes. Here's Vince talking about it. Mr. Cohen: What about -- some of his work received coverage in a number of other more mainstream outlets, for example, Sports Illustrated. I believe Frank Deford did a story on the Meltzer numbers. Are you famliar with this? Vince McMahon: Look, I've borrowed one of Frank Deford's shoes on night. He doesn't like me. Mr. Cohen: Are you familiar with his story? Vince McMahon: No. Other than Frank Deford wrote something derogatory. But, you know, he has no sense of humor and he doesn't like me. We were bowling one night and I borrowed one of his shoes and he never found it. And so he had to walk home in a bowling shoe and one of his others, and he was upset about that I understand. Mr. Leviss: I'm going to have to note that would be upsetting too. Mr. O'Neil: Now we know the rest of the story. Mr. McDevitt: You're hearing something for the first time, too. I never heard that one. Mr. McMahon: Well, actually I also borrowed one of his wife's shoes, too. Mr. McDevitt: That's a whole different story. Mr. McMahon: I left that part out. Mr. Leviss: I take it she was not your size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.