|
Post by thebudman2006 on Mar 8, 2007 14:55:06 GMT -5
Brutus Beefcake was the biggest draw for the WWE. Same with Diesal and Lex Luger. Trust me I was there.
|
|
|
Post by willywonka666 on Mar 8, 2007 15:00:38 GMT -5
JR and the E are saying this as a fact, ok. But if they had their way, theyd probably prefer that the fans not really think about it and have a discussion like this, which is one of the reasons I love this board and associating with the people here
|
|
|
Post by 'Sweet n' Sour' A. A. Estrada on Mar 8, 2007 15:02:20 GMT -5
Why does there have to be a winner and a loser? Why can't they both have drawn lots of money and leave it at that?
|
|
|
Post by thebudman2006 on Mar 8, 2007 15:03:54 GMT -5
Beacuase Bobby Blaze won't allow that.
|
|
|
Post by willywonka666 on Mar 8, 2007 15:04:24 GMT -5
Why does there have to be a winner and a loser? Why can't they both have drawn lots of money and leave it at that? Well there isn't really a competition,but it was bound to be taken that way once Ross announced it
|
|
|
Post by T.J. "the Crippler" Stevens on Mar 8, 2007 15:26:37 GMT -5
I always liked both guys so I don't take the Jim Ross comment as an insult to anyone. It's just a fact. Those Austin T-shirts sold like wildfire, the arenas were always jammed full, and the television ratings are there to prove it. It doesn't denigrate anything that Hogan did. They were both on top at completely different times. Do you think JR would have brought up this fact if Hogan was on good terms with the E and Austin wasn't? Why wouldn't he? He's stating a fact, and he's not taking anything away from Hogan. It's not an insult to Hogan. Plus, JR is Austin's friend. He's never done anything but compliment the man. People seem to be seizing on this quote as if the WWE is throwing bombs at Hogan. I don't think that's what's happening. I think so many people hate Hogan so much that they're trying to make this into something that it's not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2007 15:34:29 GMT -5
Yeah I don't really see how this is a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by thesunbeast on Mar 11, 2007 8:55:35 GMT -5
JR only said that Austin made the most money in a SINGLE YEAR.
|
|
|
Post by Palatial Regalia on Mar 11, 2007 9:01:57 GMT -5
If anyone remembered correctly, by the time Austin became huge, the wrestling boom period was already in full swing,
|
|
|
Post by willywonka666 on Mar 11, 2007 9:04:16 GMT -5
JR only said that Austin made the most money in a SINGLE YEAR. I wouldn't bother calling him the better draw then, it's only one year, now JR could say Stone Cold drew more money in 1997 or whatever year it was, but otherwise, why bother saying it
|
|
Lukin Stontmehn
Don Corleone
This aggression will not stand, man.
Serves glasses of water from the bathroom sink to his guests
Posts: 1,737
|
Post by Lukin Stontmehn on Mar 11, 2007 9:21:23 GMT -5
I'm real happy that Austin's career turned out the way it did after he got fired from WCW.His matches over there were damn good and he got nice pushes but in the end it got ridiculous...being Jim Duggan's bitch is pretty much as low as you'll get.
The way the Austin-Duggan feud was handled was f***ing lame.Then WWE gave him a chance and the rest is history.
|
|
|
Post by amsiraK on Mar 11, 2007 9:30:05 GMT -5
If anyone remembered correctly, by the time Austin became huge, the wrestling boom period was already in full swing, Yeah, that's really something no one - even people in the business - really considers. It's nearly impossible to tell one person's effect on the financial end. Hogan and Austin are the only two who could be considered able to bring in money and butt-to-seat ratio on their name alone, but promoters and their cronies want to attribute their fiscal ups and downs to whoever's holding the belt at the time, rather than the booking/writing, which has much more sway, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Mar 11, 2007 9:36:09 GMT -5
I'm not some loyal hulk fan by any means.....actually, it doesn't matter if I am or not. I was just stating the facts. Fact is Austin made more money than Hogan because he had twice the amount of pay per views to do so, and was on during prime time television and could leech viewers off of another competing wrestling show. There's no way around that. But like I said, two different eras, so you can't even really compare the two. So, you know, the whole over exagerration of Hogan fans is kind of null and void here. You could easily spin that around in Austin's favor; Austin was constantly exposed to the audience week after week and on PPV 12 months a year and managed to remain on top all that time without getting stale to the fans. Hogan had more time on top, but less exposure. As soon as he got to WCW and got overexposed the fans turned on him. I also love how Hogan fans are quick to point out how Hogan made WCW successful, neglecting that Hogan was actually a huge contributer to their demise. At any rate, it seemed a rather easy conclusion to me that Austin was the bigger draw. You can adjust for inflation, divide fanbase per PPV amount, adjust your interest rates, whatever you wanna do...but that ain't gonna change the facts. Plus for everything good Hogan has done for the business, he's hurt it just as badly by squashing young talent and refusing to put guys over when he should have.
|
|
|
Post by The Jeebus on Mar 11, 2007 9:40:29 GMT -5
Not to mention, he was competing with Hogan whilst doing so.
|
|
|
Post by amsiraK on Mar 11, 2007 9:51:34 GMT -5
Let's not turn this into another "Hogan fans v. Austin fans frothing at the mouth" debate, though. We've had too much of those lately.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2007 9:54:03 GMT -5
It's impossible to tell. They were both huge, and Steve was presumably a better drawer, but as someone said before, Austin also was at his peak during the biggest boom of the WWF. It can't really be determined. Though it would be interesting to know.
|
|
|
Post by willywonka666 on Mar 11, 2007 10:07:22 GMT -5
If anyone remembered correctly, by the time Austin became huge, the wrestling boom period was already in full swing, Well yea, but the WWF was getting their ass handed to them by WCW until Austin won the world title at Wrestlemania-then the WWF had it's best years since the 80's
|
|
|
Post by Can you afford to pay me, Gah on Mar 11, 2007 10:40:43 GMT -5
This is something people can debate for years. Hogan was also huge during his time. Austin was huge during his time. They both sparked a major money drawing era. JR is Austin's biggest butt kisser so there should be no surpised he say his buddy Austin draw more. You can't make an honest comparision on it for the different times and who at that time Hogan was on top compared to Austin when it came to buyrates and stuff.
Austin packed the arena. So did Hogan for several years in the late 80s and earily 90's. His Wrestlemania 3 match with Andre was huge. Now you can't compare them. Austin had Monday Night Raw that was seen everywhere in the US and canada on TSN and Pay Per View was available everywhere as were During Hogan big run. Pay Per View wasn't in as many house holds and there shows weren't available nearly as much as it is now. You have to also remember money wise Austin worked a PPV every month during his run. Hogan only had the big 4. The Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, and Suriver Series.
I recall a lot of Hogan shirts during his time. Austin was huge no doubt. So was Hogan. But there times are too different to say who out draw who.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2007 11:10:03 GMT -5
I dunno, I think Vince decided to never be the bigger man once he started the InVasion. "BE A MAN VINCE!!" "Do da thang, Tatanker! Ooh, yeah! Dig it!" Sorry, had visions of Randy Savage's commentary from WM IX in my head.
|
|
|
Post by RedSmile on Mar 11, 2007 11:12:53 GMT -5
I absolutely don't give two shits who outdrew who. Not one bit. Never have, never will. I think it's a little on the smarky smarkish side of things for me.
|
|