Sc
Don Corleone
Must think of something witty to put here...
Posts: 1,417
|
Post by Sc on Nov 23, 2012 2:12:38 GMT -5
To be fair Punk has probably been in almost all of the main events since Raw 1000 and he might be in the top 5 as well. Top 5? Of all time? Top five since overruns since Raw 1000.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Nov 23, 2012 2:53:03 GMT -5
Top five since overruns since Raw 1000. That list wasn't bottom 5 Raws since Raw 1000, that list was bottom 5 Raws since 1997
|
|
|
Post by celticjobber on Nov 23, 2012 4:27:05 GMT -5
I enjoy Punk's work, but I have to admit it seems like he's a total ratings-killer.
|
|
|
Post by YiHammer on Nov 23, 2012 5:59:37 GMT -5
I enjoy Punk's work, but I have to admit it seems like he's a total ratings-killer. I disagree until we see another champ deal with 3 hours
|
|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Nov 23, 2012 6:41:41 GMT -5
I know the whole "Punk is a crappy ratings draw" thing has already been said, but damn... To be fair Punk has probably been in almost all of the main events since Raw 1000 and he might be in the top 5 as well. Yeah, have we even had an overrun since Raw 1000 that doesn't involve Punk, at all?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2012 23:36:20 GMT -5
I enjoy Punk's work, but I have to admit it seems like he's a total ratings-killer. I disagree until we see another champ deal with 3 hours Still, the worst and now-sixth worse were before the three hour change and he and Bryan are the common denominators between them. The three hour Raws are definitely playing a part but it's hard to overlook that.
|
|
|
Post by Savage Gambino on Nov 24, 2012 0:10:45 GMT -5
I disagree until we see another champ deal with 3 hours Still, the worst and now-sixth worse were before the three hour change and he and Bryan are the common denominators between them. The three hour Raws are definitely playing a part but it's hard to overlook that. And it's not like these are the only three-hour RAWs in WWE history. Does anyone have the number on record for the overruns of the pre-1000 MNRs? Viewers' Choice? The Draft? Any of them?
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Nov 24, 2012 0:32:27 GMT -5
I pretty much expect WWE to play out its booking scenario with Punk-Rock at Royal Rumble and possibly to keep CMP at or near the top of the card through Wrestlemania because they have little choice, but after that I think his push will end unless the ratings trends change in Punk's favor.
They're stuck with him now because of how they've booked themselves into a corner with Rock, and also because he's on commercials for the videogame and on the box, so they need to keep him elevated. At some point, however, he will have to start showing he can get over in a main-event way.
No wonder they kept him out of the main event of so many PPVs.
|
|
|
Post by YiHammer on Nov 24, 2012 0:48:32 GMT -5
Still, the worst and now-sixth worse were before the three hour change and he and Bryan are the common denominators between them. The three hour Raws are definitely playing a part but it's hard to overlook that. And it's not like these are the only three-hour RAWs in WWE history. Does anyone have the number on record for the overruns of the pre-1000 MNRs? Viewers' Choice? The Draft? Any of them? Not comparable as those ate special Rawz Nobody can deny that Punks horrid herl turn plus 3 hours is the main factor in bad ratings. I never got how people can single out one person as being to blame or credit for ratings (Mark Henry's title run excluded)
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Nov 24, 2012 0:50:35 GMT -5
And it's not like these are the only three-hour RAWs in WWE history. Does anyone have the number on record for the overruns of the pre-1000 MNRs? Viewers' Choice? The Draft? Any of them? Not comparable as those ate special Rawz Nobody can deny that Punks horrid herl turn plus 3 hours is the main factor in bad ratings. I never got how people can single out one person as being to blame or credit for ratings (Mark Henry's title run excluded) Because Ryback is the future of the business and we need to get on with it. He's so awesome that a non-Cena PPV wasn't a box office disaster. (Ignoring that the prior non-Cena PPV held up as well.)
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Nov 24, 2012 0:55:03 GMT -5
Honestly, I've given up on WWE for the moment, I might tune in Monday Idk, I just know that I've lost any interest, their honestly isn't anything that makes me want to watch the show currently. CM Punk's whole character has declined for me, he does great heel work but its ruined by the idea that fans still like the dude and he's trying to say he's being disrespected only for it to be contradicted by the crowd reactions, it just makes no damn sense. Ryback isn't convincing as a Main Eventer, he gets great reactions and comes off as a convincing wrestler but I can't get into his current character because theres such a limitation to how far they can go with it. His match with Punk at Hell in a Cell was decent but one of the worst HIAC matches.
The Cena/AJ storyline is mind numbing, and their is just too much overexposure of bland types like Del Rio, Orton, and Show. I get annoyed with hearing about how "ruthless" Del Rio is and how much of a viper Orton is. All 3 make up a black hole in the company that sucks the life out of segments. The last Raw I watched was the return of Lawler, it opened with 4 segments straight of Dolph Ziggler that featured Orton and Del Rio, and by the end of that first 37 minutes I was just completely out of the show. I may watch Monday, Idk, but Raw these days is just horrible.
The same formula is just killing the show, the backstage segments are horrible and just seem forced, the announcing is biased as hell and while I do understand Vince wants a "storyteller" to keep the crowd in the loop of what's going on it gets frustrating to hear two face commentators berate the actions of a Heel instead of giving two sides of the story, that is what I liked about Ventura and Lawler up til 2000, they tried rationalizing heels actions in logical ways, especially Ventura. Otherwise you're telling the fan to "Like it or go f*** yourself".
Idt I've been so uninterested in WWE in the 12 years I've watched it. I much prefer watching anything from 1987 to 2006 than what we've had the last few years, especially now. I stopped watching in 2004 and I feel another stoppage coming, I'd like to keep up in hopes of something great coming around, but I don't see that happening, which sucks because they have CM Punk, they have Brock Lesnar, they have The Rock under contract again, and yet they've found a way to make it all bland by pushing this AJ/Cena story, Alberto Del Rio, and forcing a Punk heel run.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Nov 24, 2012 1:05:02 GMT -5
Not comparable as those ate special Rawz Nobody can deny that Punks horrid herl turn plus 3 hours is the main factor in bad ratings. I never got how people can single out one person as being to blame or credit for ratings (Mark Henry's title run excluded) Because Ryback is the future of the business and we need to get on with it. He's so awesome that a non-Cena PPV wasn't a box office disaster. (Ignoring that the prior non-Cena PPV held up as well.) I know most people won't listen to this, but I wouldn't be surprised if TLC got a boost because of the Triple H vs. Kevin Nash match
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Nov 24, 2012 1:05:16 GMT -5
They're stuck with him now because of how they've booked themselves into a corner with Rock, and also because he's on commercials for the videogame and on the box, so they need to keep him elevated. At some point, however, he will have to start showing he can get over in a main-event way. Not necessarily, because WWE's biggest problem isn't that they've spent over a year building their company around a mediocrity whose biggest claim to fame is late-WCW-esque worked shoot gimmickry, it's that that mediocrity whose biggest claim to fame is late-WCW-esque worked shoot gimmickry is STILL genuinely the 2nd most popular and successful guy on the active roster. Punk may be a terrible draw, but it's not like WWE has any better options. Orton's spent years on the same level as a guy who gets fantastic reactions from live crowds and who barely anyone else gives a damn about. Sheamus is, charitably-speaking, a work in progress. Ryback is in an awkward position where he's red hot but so limited that capitalizing on his heat could very well expose his limitations and kill his potential. The last remaining aging Monday Night Wars veterans (Rey, Big Show, Kane) probably all have more mainstream recognition and bigger fanbases than any of the above guys, but none of them have much left in the tank. And then there's Cena, but one man can't carry the entire company, no matter how much WWE milks out of him. At least Punk gets big pops and sells t-shirts. It's sort of sad that he's the closest WWE can come to creating a new star these days, but it's better than nothing.
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Nov 24, 2012 1:10:16 GMT -5
Because Ryback is the future of the business and we need to get on with it. He's so awesome that a non-Cena PPV wasn't a box office disaster. (Ignoring that the prior non-Cena PPV held up as well.) I know most people won't listen to this, but I wouldn't be surprised if TLC got a boost because of the Triple H vs. Kevin Nash match I'm sure SOMEONE bought it because of that but I can't see Triple H vs. Nash in 2011 in a LADDER match as a huge seller. I'm just saying that people overrate Cena missing a show. The "Ryback isn't going to break out because of booking and politics, even though he did X number of buys in lieu of Cena" argument is silly. First of all, who's to say that many people bought because of Ryback in the first place? It's not like the crowd at Raw this week was packed to the rafters, if you've seen the pictures of the hard camera side. I think the WWE is in a stage where basically, they do the business that they do. They can bring an outside draw for a quick pop in business, but for the guys they have, TV/PPV isn't going to move much, barring a wave of injuries.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Nov 24, 2012 1:11:58 GMT -5
I know most people won't listen to this, but I wouldn't be surprised if TLC got a boost because of the Triple H vs. Kevin Nash match I'm sure SOMEONE bought it because of that but I can't see Triple H vs. Nash in 2011 in a LADDER match as a huge seller. I'm just saying that people overrate Cena missing a show. The "Ryback isn't going to break out because of booking and politics, even though he did X number of buys in lieu of Cena" argument is silly. First of all, who's to say that many people bought because of Ryback in the first place? It's not like the crowd at Raw this week was packed to the rafters, if you've seen the pictures of the hard camera side. Kevin Nash has talked about how while he was in TNA there'd be plenty of times he'd be walking through an airport and someone would come up to him asking why he hasn't been wrestling for years. The notion of Nash and Triple H wrestling a ladder match when it seems like the general public had no idea that Nash had been active for so long would spark some buys.
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Nov 24, 2012 1:13:32 GMT -5
I'm sure SOMEONE bought it because of that but I can't see Triple H vs. Nash in 2011 in a LADDER match as a huge seller. I'm just saying that people overrate Cena missing a show. The "Ryback isn't going to break out because of booking and politics, even though he did X number of buys in lieu of Cena" argument is silly. First of all, who's to say that many people bought because of Ryback in the first place? It's not like the crowd at Raw this week was packed to the rafters, if you've seen the pictures of the hard camera side. Kevin Nash has talked about how while he was in TNA there'd be plenty of times he'd be walking through an airport and someone would come up to him asking why he hasn't been wrestling for years. The notion of Nash and Triple H wrestling a ladder match when it seems like the general public had no idea that Nash had been active for so long would spark some buys. Christian has said the same thing to. Do I think people buy PPVs if Christian has a high profile match? I'm not arguing that some people may have bought for that match, just not a ton, and you're missing the point I'm trying to make... that a PPV doing okay in lieu of Cena doesn't really *mean anything*.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Nov 24, 2012 1:14:25 GMT -5
Kevin Nash has talked about how while he was in TNA there'd be plenty of times he'd be walking through an airport and someone would come up to him asking why he hasn't been wrestling for years. The notion of Nash and Triple H wrestling a ladder match when it seems like the general public had no idea that Nash had been active for so long would spark some buys. Christian has said the same thing to. Do I think people buy PPVs if Christian has a high profile match? I'm not arguing that some people may have bought for that match, just not a ton, and you're missing the point I'm trying to make... that a PPV doing okay in lieu of Cena doesn't really *mean anything*. No I understand your point. All I was trying to say was that the pay-per-view did have a special attraction match to an extent that may have boosted the buys a little bit.
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Nov 24, 2012 1:26:47 GMT -5
Christian has said the same thing to. Do I think people buy PPVs if Christian has a high profile match? I'm not arguing that some people may have bought for that match, just not a ton, and you're missing the point I'm trying to make... that a PPV doing okay in lieu of Cena doesn't really *mean anything*. No I understand your point. All I was trying to say was that the pay-per-view did have a special attraction match to an extent that may have boosted the buys a little bit. Yeah, but even without it the buys probably wouldn't be that out of line. I think their PPV audience ebbs and flows, but the audience that is "locked in" at the time will buy the B show no matter what is on the card.... as long as it's not a total turd of a card. Look at December to Dismember, when they had PPVs on top of each other, they got basically 40% of the PPV audience to buy THAT, compared to what the Raw/Smackdown PPVs did.
|
|