How Did It Feel Having A Good PPV?

[Stu]

Remember what happened moments after Undertaker won the Royal Rumble? These forums exploded! Every other second, there was either a "Undertaker won" or "CM Punk wasn't buried" or some other kind of thread. When I first looked at the main page after the Rumble ended, I was like WTF???

And then you go to other wrestling sites. Reader feedback is mostly positive, guys like Sherer, Keller and Meltzer and their cohorts are complimenting WWE's efforts and things are just great.

So while talk about the Rumble is still on, I want to know what you all thought not of the Rumble, but the fallout. How did it feel to see all these positive comments? Even if you didn't like the Rumble, explain what you thought about all the hoopla.

[MichaelMartini]

I was baffled because I thought it was a pretty weak PPV.

[MGH]

It was a pleasant change. Watching good wrestling means the few negatives are easily ignored. No excuse for them not to be able to have quality PPVs on a constant basis. Yet they find a way not too.

[Spankymac is sick of the swiss]

I definetly thought it was refreshing, so of course I had to try and screw things up with my anti-Taker stance, but it didn't change anything, and I'm kind of glad for that.

[Hiroshi Hase]

It was weird, as the PPV's from WWE as of late have been pretty subpar, so yes I was pleasantly surprised.

[MichaelMartini]

I wonder how many would still like RR as much if D2D and NYR didn't suck so bad.

[Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone]

I actually thought the first hour was on the dull side. Typically PPV's have a good amount of stipulation and specialty matches, since that's what people pay for. However they were all just standard matches up until Cena-Umaga. Of course that match was very exciting, and the Royal Rumble match itself was good this year. Having the number 30 guy win was a huge plus in my book, since it actually made the number 30 spot finally live up to its hype.

[akkountent]

Breaking down the cost of the PPV by match using percentage of time alloted is as follows:

- MNM vs Hardy's; match length was 15 min, 15 min divided by 180 min = 8% multiplied by $40.00 (cost of PPV) = $3.30

- Lashly vs Test; match length was 7 min, cost = $1.50

- Batista vs Kennedy; match length was 10 min, cost = $2.20

- Cena vs Umaga; match length was 23 min, cost = $5.20

- Royal Rumble; match length was 58 min, cost = $12.90

- Backstage skits, interviews, other crap length was 67 min, cost = $14.90

Based on the figures and the opinion that the only PPV quality matches were the Cena match & the Royal Rumble, the PPV was worth less than half of the value paid for it; the Cena match & Rumble were worth roughly $18.10 and people shelled out $40.00. From an akkounting standpoint, this PPV didn't measure up.

[Agent P]

lenny said:

I actually thought the first hour was on the dull side. Typically PPV's have a good amount of stipulation and specialty matches, since that's what people pay for. However they were all just standard matches up until Cena-Umaga. Of course that match was very exciting, and the Royal Rumble match itself was good this year. Having the number 30 guy win was a huge plus in my book, since it actually made the number 30 spot finally live up to its hype.

I always had a stance against number 30 winning because they'd be in the match barely 5 minutes before the end. I didn't have a problem with Taker winning because he spent some time in there before the finish.

[Jiren]

i enjoyed all of the Rumble apart from Lashley/Test

Boy what a snoozefest

[The Wrestling Rambler]

michaelmartini said:

I was baffled because I thought it was a pretty weak PPV.

As am I. Was there something I was missing there?