Raw Draws Highest Rating In Six Months
Gee, it’s almost like Rock is a huge deal and Punk isn’t.
– Last night’s episode of WWE Raw scored a 3.68 rating with 5.02 million viewers. Those numbers are up 21% and 16%, respectively, from the 3.04 and 4.3 million viewers the week before. It is the first time that Raw has topped five million viewers since the 1,000th Raw and before that, the night after WrestleMania 28. The show did hours of 4.86 million, 5.27 million and 4.93 million.
The show ranked #1 among cable TV shows for the night, both in overall viewers and in the key male demographics. The key demos were up huge, both of them up 0.6 from last week.
Highest rating in six months, up 20% from Punk’s last show as champion. But hey, I’m sure Punk should be considered the real talent in there right? Or at least on the same level as Rock right?
I’ve havent really watched wrestling in since maybe Brock/Cena @ Extreme Rules. KBs reviews have brought me back up to speed. Seems I’ve been gone for extremely long time.
Anyways. If this sudden shift doesn’t prove that Punk still isn’t on the level of a Cena/Rock, I don’t know what will. What happened to Punk? He seemed to be at the height of his popularity after I stopped watching.
I’ve read this clusterf*ck of a debate with something I can only describe as bemused indifference bordering on confused annoyance. As much as KB’s point is belligerently narrow-minded, he’s probably right. However, a few points:
KB, I’ve read your Mania reviews, and to paraphrase ‘WM11 was absolutely terrible but it drew the most money for a while.’ – by your logic, because that Mania drew loads, it was great. What your theory doesn’t allow for is the stupidity of people, and far from the ‘best’ being the big draw, sometimes it’s the worst. People would pay to watch a literal turn in the ring if Vince sold it right. Don’t make sadi turd the best wrestler ever.
If WM11 drew more money than WM10, does that simple fact alone make it better? Does the fact that Bam Bam and LT drew more money that Flair and Savage make them ‘better’ main eventers? I think not, and you’ve possibly hoisted yourself via your own petard.
If someone draws the most money, it simply means they drew the most money. If the only thing you judge who is best is how much money they draw, then fine. Whatever sector of business you look at, making the most money does not mean the best. It’s a factor, but there are other factors to tie in. The ‘best’ may not always be acknowledged as such. Bam Bam Bigelow and LT both headlined a big drawing Mania. Does it make Bam Bam more ‘the best’ than say Kane?
It IS subjective depending on how you define ‘the best’. In actual fact, Hogan is the best and Austin the next best whichever way you look at it. Or perhaps a better word would be ‘Greatest’. The term ‘Best’ is far too subjective to make useful debating, as proved here. The ‘Greatest’ is more quantifiable and uses drawing as it’s main facet. Semantics. Best Schmest. Yes Hogan is the best, but NOT JUST COS HE DREW THE MOST MONEY. It was a whole load of other factors that, added together, meant he drew the most money. You’re looking at the symptoms, not the cause.
As for Mania 11, yeah it was quite successful. Was it enjoyable? Not at all other than maybe Shawn vs. Diesel. It falls into the same category as Jersey Shore: successful but crap.
It will always be subjective. If he still thinks that’s the only way to judge the “best” than, that’s just his viewpoint.
“then”
Does CM Punk equal buys?
WWE reported earlier this week that December’s Tables, Ladders & Chairs PPV did around 170,000 buys. The number is down from last year’s 179,000. The show is listed as having 71,000 domestic buys and 99,000 foreign. This is very low and maybe an error. Last year’s show did 98,000 domestic.
October’s Hell in a Cell PPV, which featured Punk vs Ryback in the main event (and no John Cena because of injury) did strong sales. The lower buyrate of TLC is good news for Punk, who wasn’t competing on the show due to injury.
CM Punk not wrestling on the show, which had one of the worst buyrates of the year, is a sign that Punk was a solid PPV draw while he was champion and his matches are whether fans will pay $40+ for a PPV.
Credit: Rajah.com
Seems to be a draw to me
He is. Not on the level of Rock or Cena or even close for that matter but he is.
always glad to see the sharing of opinions:)
If only you had some stronger ones.
The comment sections are starting to look like the WZ forums..
Thanks…..I thin.
When it comes to telling a story in the ring, here are my top 10 guys (full timers of course) in the WWE right now ;
1. John Cena
2. CM Punk
3. Daniel Bryan
4. Chris Jericho
5. Sheamus
Seriously, Punk is probably my second favorite all time behind HHH, and there’s no doubt in my mind that he’s a better worker than Cena in the sense of OMGZMOVEZ, but when it comes to a WWE style story (heel control segment, subsequent babyface comeback) , nobody has done it like John Cena. ou want a reference for this ? Watch the BROCK match @ Extreme Rules, which in my opinion is probably the greatest match since 1997. Nobody can sell a heel beatdown and orchestrate such a great face comeback like John boy, and that storytelling ability coupled with his great look and great mic skills is why he’s one of the greatest of all time.
KONNAN was the highest drawing wrestler in North America for two years according to WON. Konnan sucks :p
When Punk calls himself the “Best in the World,” I don’t think anyone other than his delusional heel persona actually and dumb fans think he’s the best as far as a marketable commodity. For those who do, they’re wrong. However, to say he’s “failed” as a heel is wrong too. If the ratings turn out bad, you can’t pin it on one man; even in a segment-by-segment breakdown it could sometimes be the quality of the segment rather than the individuals who lose ratings. It’s not an infallible science and I don’t think any of us can claim to have an expert grasp of it, especially when using outside perspectives.
I do think the title change AND the fact it was The Rock winning the title was the reason for the sudden spike in viewership on Monday, though if that increase in viewership isn’t sustained you can’t say they’re only interested in seeing Rocky as champion. I do think ratings might be up long-term, but it is also WrestleMania season and near the end of the football season, when ratings typically improve anyway — though I think they will more with The Rock as champion. However, there’s the fact The Rock isn’t a regular facet on the WWE’s calendar; at this point, he’s a seasonal talent, which makes him a special attraction. Were he on television every week like Punk or Cena, he might also just become “part of the show” and might not move ratings much, just as Punk and Cena usually don’t. Title changes might just be big draws usually; that was reportedly why WWE suddenly switched the title from Del Rio to John Cena. This produced a bigger spike because it’s The Rock, who’s a big effin’ deal and a special attraction. Also, you have to consider that that title change was the culmination of a very long, dramatic storyline. Punk’s a heel who bragged about being champion for months. Maybe some people tuned in specifically because they were GLAD to see Punk had lost the title, which would mean he succeeded as a heel.
As far as wrestling quality mattering, of course it does. WWE is pretty successful with their DVD sales, which are wrestling-heavy, thus I do believe most people are buying them to see the wrestling. Then the fact they even ship out “Best Matches of (Year)” DVDs suggests WWE’s confident match quality is an important part of selling their product.
Also, Martin, it’s simply wrong to say Cena’s better in the ring than Punk. Maybe it comes from actually having some experience in the ring, but I know there are a ton of skills Punk has but Cena doesn’t. Cena’s a sloppier bumper, the majority of his holds are less clean than CM Punk’s, Punk knows a greater variety of holds than Cena (Cena when he tries to chain = headlock, armwrench, push him down to a knee — and eventually there’ll be a sloppy snapmare somewhere in there), Cena’s not as acrobatic, he’s more limited in his striking and a ton of other perfectly practical details. He’s not a better wrestler, as in he is not more skilled in the physical skills of professional wrestling. There are other aspects, yes, like the ability to tell a story, but usually I compare wrestlers’ acumen at that skill by how many “big matches” they have, sort of going along with that cliche “when the lights are on brightest.” Cena’s had more, but Cena’s been in the main event longer. However, in Punk’s 434 days as champion he’s had a ton of great matches, more than I think Cena had during his longest reign. However again, this, along with the subject of whether Punk cut good heel promos over the past half year, Martin, is a very difficult to dissect because we don’t have all the examples on-hand. Sometimes it’s better to say, “Shit, I don’t know for certain,” and use a qualifier like, “maybe.” It’s arrogant to assume we know better without being able to fully measure all the information we’re otherwise assuming about. We might just have to agree it’s subjective on this detail and move on. I liked the bulk of Punk’s promos. I do think there was a time in November and December where it felt like his character was treading water, but also his feud had been a bit derailed leading up to Hell in a Cell because of Cena’s injury. And I just generally thought there was a lot of “treading water” with WWE’s product in the late fall.
If CM Punk was truly failing as a draw like you said, KB, why didn’t WWE have him lose the title sooner? And if they continue to book him in a prominent way, wouldn’t you have to admit you’re mistaken about what a “draw” is? Because if he really was a failure as a draw, they’d probably rethink pushing him. Even big stars, when their weekly fixtures on television, don’t always move the ratings up. However, if they were absent, the ratings might drop worse than they already were. Cena’s been on the majority of the shows Punk has, yet you’re saying he’s a better draw than Punk. You know, I’ll concede that. Similar to The Rock winning the WWE Championship, maybe Cena would incite a bigger spike in ratings than Punk would IF there was a big development in his character or storyline, like winning the WWE Championship again. However, Punk was also the first regular performer to outdo Cena in t-shirts sales in years, so even if he didn’t maintain such sales, he didn’t “fail” at being a draw, he was still an excellent one, above pretty much every other performer on the roster, except Cena.
We don’t need to limit our critical approaches to wrestling to just one with an iron set of criteria. We can have different perspectives for criticism, just as we do with literature, film, visual art and pretty much any craft. Using criteria designed for a more wrestling-oriented criticism, we’d say Punk’s better; using criteria for a more commercial-oriented criticism, we’d say Cena and The Rock are better. These perspectives, however, still tie into each other in that the wrestling, as I think I did a good job of making a case for earlier, is an important part of the commercial side of the industry. And just because a wrestler’s a success in one critical lens doesn’t mean he’s a failure in another, but maybe still good or even excellent, but not as excellent as some others. It’s way too complex for absolutes. Seriously. Quit being Sith, guys, ’cause they only use absolutes ‘n junk.
Okay, that’s all. Sorry if this is a discordant patchwork of rantings, there were a lot of ideas flying around and it was hard to put them all together concisely.
[Edit] Here’s the tl;dr for anyone who wants it — Quit trying to dumb down the business. There are a ton of ways to look at it and a ton of layers to each view. There’s a phrase out there about how people who simplify things being themselves simple. Kind of applies here. I do believe we can eventually simplify things, like “zero” was a complex, mind-blowing concept for a while, but now it’s elementary knowledge all packed into a single numeral: 0. However, I think what we’ve discussed here cannot yet be compacted into a word or words that encapsulates all the complexities we’ve discussed. So yeah. Quit being Sith.
[2nd Edit] – But I don’t mean you can’t be emotive and just say something light and easy. Like when I say something such as, “AMG DANIEL BRYAN IS DUH BEST EVER YAAAAAY!”, obviously there are a ton of details I’m not discussing, but at the same time it sounds more like a joke ’cause caps, so you could probably tell I’m not actually trying to present that as fact, just making an emotive comment because we should all be allowed to mark out ‘n junk.
“meet”
Cena can’t go and met sick kids as a heel?
What kid wants to see the villain?
All of them.
I never wanted to see villains. I wanted to see them get beaten up.
No it doesn’t. It means that some fans like him and some don’t. It definitely doesn’t mean that the majority don’t. The show isn’t booked for the louder adults. It’s booked for children, with whom Cena is the most popular.
No, he shouldn’t. If he turns heel, I guarantee you within three months he would be the most over person on the roster all over again and people would treat him as a face. Turning Cena heel is not and should not happen.
Yeah heel shirts sell. Face shirts sell WAY better. Cena is getting WWE mainstream publicity that no other full timer is getting them. Cena moves merchandise, Cena is on cereal boxes, Cena is the only person willing to go and meet sick kids at an astronomical rate. You turn him heel and all that goes away. That’s not smart business.
If you want to argue that Cena should be starting to wind down his time on top due to age and injuries that’s one thing, but the heel turn doesn’t make sense and won’t for several years. he’s still FAR too popular.
So what your saying is, Cena walks outside one day and gets hit by a bus. All of a sudden the make a wish foundation wants nothing to do with them? No other wrestler will be able to achieve mainstream attention? Or move merchandise?
Cena is expendable like any other wrestler. I’m not even saying get rid of him, as that would be stupid. I’m saying move someone up to his level. It wouldn’t be so bad if the outcome wasn’t always the same. Even When the rock beat him he didn’t seem to care that much. If he doesn’t care how can anyone else?
I have never understood people telling me. “Cena goes to see hundreds of sick kids, or he never complains and does his job.” What does any of that have to do with my enjoyment of his character or lack there of.
Make-A-Wish requests can’t be filled if no one requests them. If other wrestlers could achieve mainstream success, don’t you think WWE would push them to that? The same with merchandise. You can’t make people buy something.
The fact that you think Cena is expendable says a lot. As for who would care, the 1.2 million people that bought the show seemed to care. I highly doubt Rock vs. Trent Barreta would have drawn the same number of people.
It has very little to do with you, but we’re not talking about you. We’re talking about an asset to a business. Cena is their biggest (full time) asset. You’re looking at this through a small window instead of seeing the big picture.
Ok here’s a way to prove favourite/best is purely opinion based.
you ask 10 people who the best team in any sport is. Is the answer going to be the same from all 10?
If what your saying is true and best is not subjective than everyone should know who the best team is.
Quite possibly, yes. However, if the answers are different, it could be any of the following reasons:
1. Lack of knowledge
2. Hometown support
3. Thinking that favorite and best are the same, which I’ve shown over and over again that they aren’t.
Merely saying that something is the best doesn’t make it true. What does make it true are stats and figures where applicable, which is what I’ve shown you for the last three hours or so.
Well I guess it’s apples and oranges. You think he best should be based on gate and ratings.
I think the best should be based on entertainment and matches.
Agree to disagree
As for the sports analogy it proves it’s Subjective. The Chicago bulls are the only team in history to 3 peat nba championships twice. Does that make them the best? Does that even mean they will win this year?
p.s. I’m still expecting you to tell me I’m wrong, go on you know you want to.
I never got the expression apples to oranges. They’re very similar things and have a lot in common. wouldn’t the more appropriate expression be like “apples to city buses”?
Like I said: incorrect information is a factor. Not only are the Bulls not the only team to do that, but the Celtics did it three times with no breaks (59-66). The Lakers have two three peats also (52-54 and 00-02). In other words, the people that said the Bulls would be incorrect by reason of having their facts wrong.
Hogan drew more money than Austin. Austin sold more t-shirts, Hogan sold more tickets and PPVs for a longer time. Austin was indeed hotter in 98 than Hogan ever was though. He was hotter over a period of time, but Hogan was a bigger deal overall.
1. Music is a bussiness.
2. People can claim that Dean Malenko is a better wrestler than Hulk Hogan or John Cena. It’s opinion.
3. Cena isn’t a very good wrestler, popular yes. Some people think he’s the best some don’t. The one’s who don’t just have a different fav/best.
4. What takes up more ppv time than anything else? The matches, if Cena is not capable of holding up his end “sometimes not all the time” Doesn’t that mean he isn’t the best?
1. No it isn’t. Music is an industry. Justin Bieber isn’t a business, nor is any specific act. They doesn’t have stock holders, a board of directors, investors to answer to etc. WWE is a business. Wrestling is an industry. They’re two very different things.
2. Yes, and it’s incorrect. I assure you: an opinion can be wrong.
3. You have a very incorrect definition of what makes a good wrestler.
4. I’m not sure what you mean here.
“3. You have a very incorrect definition of what makes a good wrestler.”
Not incorrect just different from your own.
4. I’m not sure what you mean here.
You keep saying that in ring action doesn’t really matter all that much. Even though 70 to 80% of what these people do happens in the ring. If Cena cannot consistently put on a good match. In my opinion he isn’t the best.
I’ve also never seen a babyface so violently booed. If it happened just once or twice that would be one thing. However Wreslemania 22, ONS 2, and money in the bank 2011 and countless raws it’s happened. Why not just try something different?
I can admit to a personal bias towards Hogan. I was never a fan of his growing up. Watching him destroy his personal life is just sad at this point. He just wasn’t that great in the ring and I never understood the reaction he got/gets.
As for who’s the bigger draw that’s simple in the late 90’s hogan was in wcw, Austin was in the wwf/e. Which is still around.
3. No. I assure you, what you’re saying is incorrect. Punk may (or may not) be your favorite. That I am not disputing whatsoever. However, being your favorite doesn’t mean he’s the best. You may think he’s the best, but it doesn’t mean he is.
4. Cena does consistently put on good matches. The last time I remember a big match of his sucking was against Kane in 2012. Like him or not, the guy can bring it in big matches.
Hogan in early 96 WCW. That was worse. Also here’s the thing about Cena being booed: it’s better than the fans sitting on their hands as they do when a ton of people come out. Whether people like him or not, they react to him. That’s a very good thing.
I agree it is sad, but it doesn’t take away from what he did as a performer. Granted I can watch Benoit matches and not thing about what he did, but I can understand how some people can’t distinguish the two (not saying that’s a bad thing, just a different way they’re looking at it).
Hogan was a bigger deal in the 80s than Austin was in the late 90s. Without Hogan, there wouldn’t have been an Austin to cheer for. Hogan was dominant from January of 84 to about 1991 and then again from mid 1994 to late 1997. Austin was dominant for less than four years combined. Hogan is a bigger deal, no question about it.
Why do people use that argument for Cena? It means the babyface run Isn’t working. Now I will agree that not everyone is booing Cena but enough for it to be noticeable. That is not the reaction a babyface is supposed to receive. It means he is failing at being the hero.
I know there is no competition “tna be damned” and that’s the reason they don’t take risks anymore. However Cena should be a heel or at least get an edge to him.
p.s. Don’t tell me that crap about all the money they will supposedly lose. Are you seriously telling me no one ever buys a heel t shirt? Are Cena shirts the only ones they sell? come on now.
To say somebody is the best in the world due to being a “draw” is like saying Justin Bieber is the greatest artist in the world because he sells more CDs. Hell, Samuel L Jackson is the greatest of all time because he sold more tickets to movies.
It’s ENTERTAINMENT… It’s a weekly television show with PPV’s thrown into the mix…… Being a “draw” doesn’t constitute greatness. Wrestling is art ; the one’s who can tell the best story are the best, whether through their matches, their promos, etc.
Here’s the problem with that theory:
WWE isn’t entertainment. It’s a business that focuses on entertainment. The person that brings in the most people to that performance is the best at it. Music is entertainment, not a business. There are likely some incredibly talented people that can’t sell a dime’s worth of albums. That doesn’t mean they’re not incredibly talented. It means they aren’t a success. Rock and Cena bring in money to their company and they do it a lot better than Punk.
This notion that someone is better in the ring or better on a microphone has nothing to do with their talent in wrestling. It’s like saying Dean Malenko is a better wrestler than Hulk Hogan because he knows more moves. That has nothing to do with talent in wrestling. It’s the same as the “Cena sux he only knows five movez” argument. It doesn’t hold up.
KB, you know what else was a major factor? brock lesnar showing up, paul heyman’s performance review,vince,Jericho ,results from the rumble, john cena and a promise by dirt sheets of a new belt design.
To say by scientific fact that the show was only highly watched because of the rock is a juvenile way of thinking! I’m not saying he wasn’t a part of it but you’re making it sound like “oh yeah there were other guys there but the people tuned in solely because of the rock.”
You want reactions from the fans? heel or face punk draws reactions.
In ring quality means everything, if two guys put on a shit show there’s going to be less people wanting to tune in.
When punk was leaving he brought huge interest in the WWE, every sports show wanted the guy on and a lot of radio stations wanted to talk to the dude and that’s without punk being well known.
What’s the major factor that’s changed on the rock in ten years? a strap doesn’t make the man the man makes the strap, but in punks case he brought that belt into the front line of the WWE and media which says a lot for someone who’s in your opinion not the best in the world and just some unknown punk (no pun intended) wrestler.
The fact is, the guy is the best in the world and to hear you knock the guy because of ratings is baffling, if you didn’t notice he was on raw too, twice.
Lesnar wasn’t announced. You lose that one.
90% of the fans have no idea what a dirt sheet is either.
Regarding Punk leaving, if he was drawing such interest, why were the fans in his own hometown chanting “Let’s go Cena/Cena Sucks” rather than something about Punk?
Punk didn’t bring anything to the front line of the company. He wasn’t even main eventing most shows.
Punk is very talented. He isn’t a draw like Rock though and it’s very amusing seeing your illogical defenses of him.
So you insult him again.
Interesting
I’ve earned the right to insult Martin Gabriel. We go way back.
In your opinion heels should not make sense. That first sentence is not a fact.
There are several types of heels.
Besides why does that even matter if the babyface could refute his claims, and often did. The end result is a good match.
” I don’t necessarily enjoy Cena better. He is in fact better though.”
That just doesn’t make any sense if you don’t enjoy him better how can he be better?
As for in ring quality, that’s one of the two reasons to watch this show. The other being the promo buildup.
“That just doesn’t make any sense if you don’t enjoy him better how can he be better? ”
Easily. I’m a Cleveland Indians fan. They’ve won zero World Series since 1948. The New York Yankees have won far more than anyone else. I like the Indians, I don’t like the Yankees. The Yankees are clearly a better team though.
Kane is one of my favorite wrestlers. Do I think he’s the best ever? Of course not.
Actually if he’s one of your favourites then yes you do. Your going to put him close to the top of your list. Someone who doesn’t like him won’t. that’s how favourite/best is determined.
The leafs haven’t won the stanley cup in 45 years. They still have fans that think there the best team in the NHL. Best is opinion and subjective and always will be.
“The ratings certainly can and usually are built around one man. Back in the 80s, Hogan was the reason the vast majority of fans would come to TV tapings”
Yes because Hogan was out there wrestling himself? cutting promos on no one? There were no other matches on the card? I’m sorry ratings can not and will never be determined by one guy.
I always had a soft spot for dr issac yakem. Guilty pleasure.
No, I don’t. Again, I can like a sports team or athlete but by no means does it mean I think they’re the best. For about the third example, I’m a Kentucky football fan and they’re one of the worst teams in the country. I’ll never stop cheering for them, but I’m 100% positive that they’re not the best.
Yes the Leafs do think that. Those fans are wrong. Again, an opinion can be wrong. How can I prove this? They don’t win championships, other teams win more games than they do, and they are often beaten. Based on that alone, they aren’t the best teams. I can say that in my opinion black is lighter than yellow. That opinion is incorrect.
Here’s the thing with Hogan: he’s drawn money against almost everyone he’s fought. The guys he faced rarely did without him. The only common factor in success for that period is Hogan. Therefore, Hogan is the top draw. Also, Hogan as the top draw is something that can be chalked up to common sense.
KB, he started to write his own lines when he turned heel. you’re only able to work with what you’ve been given and to compare him to the rock and his delivery is more than bullshit, they’ve got two different promo deliveries. rock is about a cheap pop and punk now is about “truth” and truth.
Cheap pops are a myth. The fans are popping for you and that’s all that matters.
A heel should not make sense. Heels are supposed to be either delusional, bullies, or cheaters. Punk was trying to have entertaining matches while making sense. That’s not what a heel is supposed to do. Now, once he started getting delusional and talking about how he was the best of all time, THEN he started acting like a heel and was far more effective.
So in your opinion Cena puts on consistently better promos and matches than cm punk. I get that you think that, and that’s great. However insulting people who disagree with you seems ridiculous.
Cena is by no means a bad wrestler, he’s good his promos imo are annoying and childish. I know the show is catering to a child audience, They just look so forced and the humor isn’t funny.
I Think Punk’s a far better interview considering one of the top moments on raw was his “pipe bomb” promo. His in ring work is far better his matches range from good to great. I enjoy Punk in the ring more. You enjoy Cena more ce la vie.
Looking forward to chatting with you in the future
take care kb:)
Why is it ridiculous when it’s correct? I’m not insulting anything. I’m saying you’re wrong and backing it up.
I don’t necessarily enjoy Cena better. He is in fact better though. I don’t like the San Fransisco 49ers but they’re far better than the team I like best.
I hope you do indeed stick around.
I can think that Cm punk is my favourite wrestler and the best wrestler in the world. If that is my personal preference how can that be wrong?
Again ratings don’t make any difference. You watch the show to be entertained, if he entertains you the most wouldn’t that make him best ?
“cm punk isn’t my favourite wrestler. I just hate the notion that, “well raw scored a 3.whatever, that must mean that rock or anyone else is superior”. There were all kinds of people on that show, shouldn’t Punk, Lesnar, Mcmahon, Brian, even Cena should get some of the thanks for that rating.
That’s why rating arguments make no sense to me, unless Rock was on the show for the whole 3 hours, he can’t be given sole credit for the rating. That’s why it makes much more sense to enjoy whomever you enjoy the most in the ring. At least arguments of “I enjoy Rock matches more then Punk matches, or Rock promo’s more then Punk promo’s” are referring to just the 2 wrestlers and the skills sets involved.
As far as your favorite goes, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with thinking that. That is something you can base in personal preference.
As far as being the best though, there are multiple ways to determine if someone is the best in the world:
Reactions from the fans
Merchandise sales
Ticket sales when someone is the lead draw
In ring quality rarely means anything at all.
As far as ratings go, yes people like us are going to watch no matter what. WWE isn’t catering to us. WWE is catering to fans that show up every now and then. Rock is going to bring those fans in, which is what his job is. Punk has proven that he isn’t going to bring them in, based on the last year plus of ratings.
Looking at this from a scientific standpoint, what is the major factor that has changed from last week to two days ago on Raw? Punk no longer being champion. When that happened, the ratings shot up. People are more interested in seeing Rock on top than Punk, and that’s what this business is all about. It’s why John Cena is the best in the world: people will pay their money to see him. Whether it’s paying to see him win, paying to boo him, or paying to see him lose, they’re paying money because he’s on the show.
Again you can’t base the ratings on one man. The ratings determine the whole show, no one person is on the whole show. Unless you mean mikey cole is the reason for the show’s success
Reactions from the fans”
Merchandise sales
Ticket sales when someone is the lead draw”
2 things
1. None of those should matter to you as they don’t or shouldn’t matter when determining your favourite or best.
2. By that logic Stone cold steve austin was the best wrestler of 2002 – present as he still has the highest reaction from fans and merchandise sales which will never be touched.
Do you see how silly that is, it’s just so irrelevant. The best is an opinion. Cena may move merch, Which i don’t think is anywhere near as much as it used to be. To suggest that somehow makes you the best is silly.
From a fan perspective The best is the one that entertains them the most in the ring or on the mic. nothing more unless you are an employe of wwe.
p.s. could the ratings also have gone up because Brock Lesnar was there? Vince Mcmahon, it’s wrestlemania season, the announcement of a rematch?
Punk was on the show he’s still in the title picture and a focus.
Lesnar no. He was unannounced and was there for all of 4 minutes at the very end. Vince….probably not either as he’s been there recently. The announcement of a rematch doesn’t do much either as Cena spoiled that one earlier in the night.
The ratings certainly can and usually are built around one man. Back in the 80s, Hogan was the reason the vast majority of fans would come to TV tapings. The same is true today. Look at the shows when Cena isn’t in the last portion of a show. The ratings almost always dip.
As for Rock, yeah the ratings usually do go up for the first show after the Rumble. Last year they went up 12% and the year before that 8%. In other words, Rock popped the ratings more in one night than the previous two years combined.
As for those two things.
1. For favorite no. For best, yes, it should. What else are you going to base it on? Wrestling is a business and a business is about making money. If Rock and Cena make the most money (which they did last year at Wrestlemania), they’re the best.
2. He likely was, aside from the fact that it’s not a wrestler.
As for Cena as moving the most merchandise, yeah he does, which is a big reason why he’s the best.
If we’re talking about entertainment, let’s think about this for a minute. if something is entertaining enough, you’ll watch it and/or pay for it. More people pay for Cena and Rock than for Punk and the PPV buys back that up. At Wrestlemania last year, there is zero question about what that show was built around. Punk rarely headlined any show this year but let’s look at one he did headline: with the title on the line at Survivor Series, Punk headlining drew 210,000 buys (rounded down for simpler math). Rock and Cena in a meaningless match the year before drew 280,000. That’s 25% more money being brought in by Rock than Punk.
Money being drawn in is what determines who the best wrestler ever. It’s why Hogan is the best ever and Austin is the second best. Rock would pretty easily be third.
By the logic
Austin is the best ever than hogan than rock.
If he thinks that he’s not wrong.
it’s all subjective anyway.
I can think the sky is purple but that doesn’t mean I’m right.
CM Punk is the best in the world, he brings the best out of the good guys, bad guys and the great guys. he’s amazing on the mic to boot. how’s the guy not the best in the world? because of ratings? If you’re going by ratings everyone in the WWE sucks ass.
CM Punk is not the best in the world. There’s really no discussion on that.
Where’s your fact to back up your statement, strawman?
Punk failed as a heel. He didn’t draw well, he wasn’t delivering good promos in that they made perfectly good sense, he isn’t as good in the ring as Cena, he isn’t as good on the mic as Cena or Rock, the ratings went WAY up when he lost the belt, he can’t even main event PPVs as the world champion.
And before you say “it’s the writers/booking”, that makes no sense when you think about it. I could go out there and say the same lines Rock does and I’d get booed out of the arena. Punk did get better after he finally started acting like a heel, but he’s miles behind guys like Rock and Cena.
I’d hardly say Punk failed as a heel. He’s doing great work, He’s another main event level wrestler. An alternative to john cena “one who isn’t taking off after wrestlemania rock, lesnar undertaker.”
I also think KB said it because Punk marks bitch that Rock shouldn’t be there and again that Punk should be the main focus of the show (Cough)2.2 ratings(Cough)
cena is not on the level of the Rock. I still don’t understand why you take shots at cm punk? Could you please explain to me the reason for the hate?
It would be one thing if you said. “I just don’t like punk, or he’s not my favourite kind of wrestler”. Instead you use tv ratings, which shouldn’t mean anything to you as your a fan. To try to justify one wrestler to be better than the next. Wouldn’t it make more sense to say I like rock and or cena better, as they put on better matches?
I’m looking forward to the rematch between rock and punk. The match will be great.
It isn’t hate. It’s shots at people that talk about how Punk should be considered the best in the world when he’s been proven time and time again to simply not be at that level.
You’re an idiot.
Why’s that? Is it because I have an opinion that’s different from kb’s?
He’s entitled to his opinion just as I’m entitled to mine.
Yes, and we’re entitled to explain why you’re completely wrong.
I didn’t even know there was an argument about who’s a “bigger deal.” The Rock’s in movies, was one of the top figures during the company’s most successful era and is generally an entertaining guy. I don’t see why that means we should take shots at CM Punk. He’s a professional wrestler and that’s pretty much the extent of his national presence, unlike Cena and Rock who have crossed into movies and television. I don’t expect CM Punk to have the same drawing power as The Rock, it’s an unfair comparison. That doesn’t mean he’s not a top dog in the WWE, because there are and have been lots of “top dogs” who are pretty much just wrestlers.
Ratings aside, anyone that thought Punk was on the level of Cena or Rock is pretty silly.
I’d like to see anyone say that Rock isn’t a draw now so I could just laugh at them forever.