Jesse Ventura defends Hulk Hogan over Stone Colds Comments
Aug 31, 2014 1:49:55 GMT -5
Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD likes this
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Aug 31, 2014 1:49:55 GMT -5
You factor in inflation Hogan is still WAY ahead of Austin in every single category. Autin NEVER once came close to drawing 93,000+ to a single event. Hogan was a phenom in his hay day, same as Austin. But Austin's gate numbers were no where near what Hogan was drawing. Hogan was drawing in thousands without the benefit of several hours of live television each and every week. Hogan also drew some of the biggest numbers in Professional Wrestling History in the days before PPV.
Hell the Big Event in Toronto, which drew 67,000+ to an aging Exhibition Place in Toronto was long before the days of PPV.
Picking individual attendances doesn't change the reality -- Austin drew, and made, far more money in his years on top than any equivalent years of Hulk Hogan's run. You can make all the excuses in the world about inflation, ticket prices, cable TV, increased pay-per-views etc etc... But all that shows is that you don't consider the Hulkster's longevity as an achievement.
Here's some Meltzer with the salient points and figures:
"Hogan was a big draw for more years than Austin. But Austin's grosses were so huge that his few years were bigger than all of Hogan's put together. The profit margin in Austin's best year was more than the total profit margin, in fact, significantly more, between 1984 and 1992, which was the entire Hogan WWE era.
Just so this isn't misinterpreted. WWF profits from 1984-92 were about $40-45 million total. Best single year was $6 million.
Profits were never less than $56 million each year from 98-99 through 00-01. Of course, things went down the minute Austin went heel.
1) If you ask anyone who was in WWE will access to all the numbers, from Vince on down, from both eras, and ask who was the biggest draw, everyone will replay Austin and without hesitation, because he sold more tickets, sold more merch, sold more PPVs. Granted, there are huge differences in eras that mitigate those things, but...Austin beat Hogan in every financial category comparing peaks. Hogan did headline more successful shows because of far greater longevity. At his peak, Austin was bigger. For longevity, Hogan was.
2) Austin started his run when WWE was deep in debt, loans out, they had to remove water coolers from the office and wrestling was never colder. Hogan's run started in 1984, when the pro wrestling industry on a national basis was already at peak levels. U.S. attendance in 1983, year before Hogan's run, was 13 million. U.S. attendance in 1996, year before Austin's run, was well under 2 million.
3) Austin got there with TV deals in place, but when wrestling ratings were rock bottom. Hogan got there when most major cities were doing far bigger ratings for wrestling than any time since. Ratings in most cities fell during the Hogan peak, as did the national cable numbers. Not his fault, just a changing environment. But Austin's numbers increased at a time when ratings across the board were declining for almost every other sport.
4) Austin did work when PPV was more established, but also worked in an environment with 35 PPVs per year (WWE, WCW, TNA & UFC). When Hogan broke into PPV, it was a novelty, WWE had a monopoly and there were only a few shows of the year, and far better promoted
5) Austin got there when merchandise division was more established. That is true.
6) Hogan's peak on NBC did draw more than Austin's peak rating on USA. Well, duh? But Hogan's ratings on cable were 3's and Austin's were double that even though there was far more cable competitition and individual cable network ratings were much smaller. Hogan's peak numbers were bigger, Austin's weekly numbers dwarfed Hogan's, even though Austin appeared on TV every week and Hogan's TV appearances were rare and promoted as special.
7) Hogan did not draw craploads more people. Hogan's best feuds averaged 8,000 to 10,000 paid aside from Orndorff. Austin at his peak averaged 14,000 paid, and did mostly sellouts. Plus, at Austin's peak, because of the Raw set, he was playing in arenas where capacity was cut back 30% for the biggest show of the week and still, on average, greatly outdrew Hogan at triple the ticket prices. And, the house shows during the Hogan run were far better promoted. The company had specialized local television and did specialized local interviews and did more advertising because house shows were the prime revenue source and considered the most important thing. During the Austin era, house shows were considered a distant No. 3 in priority. No more local market television or localized interviews. Plus, in the Hogan era, everything on television was geared toward buying house show tickets and in the Austin era, the house shows were barely acknowledged on TV that they even existed.
What part of Austin drew more at his peak and Hogan drew longer is so difficult to comprehend?
I'm not saying who was a bigger draw because it's apples to oranges. And arguing Piper & Andre vs. Rock & HHH for support only makes things more confusing.
If John Cena sells more merchandise than Hogan or Austin, then he is a bigger merchandise seller. If he sells more tickets to live shows and PPV orders, then he is a bigger draw. Is that difficult?
WCW started rebounding before Hogan's heel turn, but the NWO angle did spark a huge increase in business, and eventually also resulted in a dead company. Arguing without Hogan's heel turn, there would be no Austin is really tough to prove and it doesn't matter.
If there was no Superstar Graham, there is no Hogan. Does that make Superstar a bigger draw? Only in terms of consistently selling tickets in Madison Square Garden, but overall, no way. There isn't even logic in that.
If there is no Vince Sr., there is no Vince Jr., does that make Vince Sr. actually the better promoter? Again, no logic.
What do heel Hogan's ratings have to do with this argument. If you are arguing heel Hogan was a bigger draw then Austin in the late 90s, that's a point few will agree with because that's apples to apples and the numbers are there. Hogan of the 80s at least was a phenomenon for his time.
When it comes to cable ratings for Hogan's era and Austin's era, you don't understand ratings. In Hogan's era, how many TV channels were there if you had cable? Maybe 20. With Austin, what, maybe 150? A cable rating is based on the percentage of people whose home gets the station are watching. Cable ratings in general were significantly higher during the 80s because there were fewer stations. When Georgia Championship Wrestling in 1981 averaged a 6.4 rating (far bigger than the 3.5 to 4.0 numbers during the year Hogan was the star of the show in 84-85 when Watts' show was put on in a worse time slot and averaged a 5.3 on the same station), that meant 6.6 percent of the 20 million homes let's say that had cable. And while 6.4 was the top rated weekly show on cable at the time, Andy Griffith reruns did 3.5 because there were fewer stations and fewer options. When it comes to cable ratings comparison just using ratings themselves, Hogan had such a gigantic advantage both from being used so rarely instead of weekly, and less competition.
When you talk about DX, Rock, etc., of course all are a factor, just as Hogan had Savage, Piper, Andre, Slaughter, etc.
Saying everyone came to see Hogan at house shows is misleading. In California in 1984, Andre & Piper drew equal to Hogan. Andre drew bigger in Los Angeles. I remember talking with someone in the office after an LA show and they remarked how the people just went crazy when Hogan came out, yet when Andre comes, we sell more tickets. Of course, Hogan had more legs as a draw then Andre and Piper did. But also, Hogan sucked as a program draw. He'd draw big with someone the first time, but second and third meetings were often disappointing, which is why they would often put Hogan in secondary markets on the night of a big arena like MSG or Chicago, because the feeling was Hogan needed to be booked like Andre, a few times a year, because he wasn't Bruno whose gates went up for rematches. And when Austin was hurt, business was so hot that Rock drew just as good, but Austin on PPV was much bigger than Rock.
All eras are different anyway.
Piper drew slightly bigger in Northern California (because a Hogan vs. Jesse feud that never happened but was advertised and Hogan ended up going against other guys although fans who bought tickets didn't know it, stiffed so bad and Piper vs. Snuka and Tonga Kid--another big draw I didn't mention--was such a hot program that year).
Hogan had plenty of periods he didn't draw well. Warrior started outdrawing Hogan after the Zahorian trial but he also had no legs. Vince benched Hogan in 1992. When Hogan came back in 1993, he didn't draw well and quit himself.
Just so this isn't misinterpreted. WWF profits from 1984-92 were about $40-45 million total. Best single year was $6 million.
Profits were never less than $56 million each year from 98-99 through 00-01. Of course, things went down the minute Austin went heel.
1) If you ask anyone who was in WWE will access to all the numbers, from Vince on down, from both eras, and ask who was the biggest draw, everyone will replay Austin and without hesitation, because he sold more tickets, sold more merch, sold more PPVs. Granted, there are huge differences in eras that mitigate those things, but...Austin beat Hogan in every financial category comparing peaks. Hogan did headline more successful shows because of far greater longevity. At his peak, Austin was bigger. For longevity, Hogan was.
2) Austin started his run when WWE was deep in debt, loans out, they had to remove water coolers from the office and wrestling was never colder. Hogan's run started in 1984, when the pro wrestling industry on a national basis was already at peak levels. U.S. attendance in 1983, year before Hogan's run, was 13 million. U.S. attendance in 1996, year before Austin's run, was well under 2 million.
3) Austin got there with TV deals in place, but when wrestling ratings were rock bottom. Hogan got there when most major cities were doing far bigger ratings for wrestling than any time since. Ratings in most cities fell during the Hogan peak, as did the national cable numbers. Not his fault, just a changing environment. But Austin's numbers increased at a time when ratings across the board were declining for almost every other sport.
4) Austin did work when PPV was more established, but also worked in an environment with 35 PPVs per year (WWE, WCW, TNA & UFC). When Hogan broke into PPV, it was a novelty, WWE had a monopoly and there were only a few shows of the year, and far better promoted
5) Austin got there when merchandise division was more established. That is true.
6) Hogan's peak on NBC did draw more than Austin's peak rating on USA. Well, duh? But Hogan's ratings on cable were 3's and Austin's were double that even though there was far more cable competitition and individual cable network ratings were much smaller. Hogan's peak numbers were bigger, Austin's weekly numbers dwarfed Hogan's, even though Austin appeared on TV every week and Hogan's TV appearances were rare and promoted as special.
7) Hogan did not draw craploads more people. Hogan's best feuds averaged 8,000 to 10,000 paid aside from Orndorff. Austin at his peak averaged 14,000 paid, and did mostly sellouts. Plus, at Austin's peak, because of the Raw set, he was playing in arenas where capacity was cut back 30% for the biggest show of the week and still, on average, greatly outdrew Hogan at triple the ticket prices. And, the house shows during the Hogan run were far better promoted. The company had specialized local television and did specialized local interviews and did more advertising because house shows were the prime revenue source and considered the most important thing. During the Austin era, house shows were considered a distant No. 3 in priority. No more local market television or localized interviews. Plus, in the Hogan era, everything on television was geared toward buying house show tickets and in the Austin era, the house shows were barely acknowledged on TV that they even existed.
What part of Austin drew more at his peak and Hogan drew longer is so difficult to comprehend?
I'm not saying who was a bigger draw because it's apples to oranges. And arguing Piper & Andre vs. Rock & HHH for support only makes things more confusing.
If John Cena sells more merchandise than Hogan or Austin, then he is a bigger merchandise seller. If he sells more tickets to live shows and PPV orders, then he is a bigger draw. Is that difficult?
WCW started rebounding before Hogan's heel turn, but the NWO angle did spark a huge increase in business, and eventually also resulted in a dead company. Arguing without Hogan's heel turn, there would be no Austin is really tough to prove and it doesn't matter.
If there was no Superstar Graham, there is no Hogan. Does that make Superstar a bigger draw? Only in terms of consistently selling tickets in Madison Square Garden, but overall, no way. There isn't even logic in that.
If there is no Vince Sr., there is no Vince Jr., does that make Vince Sr. actually the better promoter? Again, no logic.
What do heel Hogan's ratings have to do with this argument. If you are arguing heel Hogan was a bigger draw then Austin in the late 90s, that's a point few will agree with because that's apples to apples and the numbers are there. Hogan of the 80s at least was a phenomenon for his time.
When it comes to cable ratings for Hogan's era and Austin's era, you don't understand ratings. In Hogan's era, how many TV channels were there if you had cable? Maybe 20. With Austin, what, maybe 150? A cable rating is based on the percentage of people whose home gets the station are watching. Cable ratings in general were significantly higher during the 80s because there were fewer stations. When Georgia Championship Wrestling in 1981 averaged a 6.4 rating (far bigger than the 3.5 to 4.0 numbers during the year Hogan was the star of the show in 84-85 when Watts' show was put on in a worse time slot and averaged a 5.3 on the same station), that meant 6.6 percent of the 20 million homes let's say that had cable. And while 6.4 was the top rated weekly show on cable at the time, Andy Griffith reruns did 3.5 because there were fewer stations and fewer options. When it comes to cable ratings comparison just using ratings themselves, Hogan had such a gigantic advantage both from being used so rarely instead of weekly, and less competition.
When you talk about DX, Rock, etc., of course all are a factor, just as Hogan had Savage, Piper, Andre, Slaughter, etc.
Saying everyone came to see Hogan at house shows is misleading. In California in 1984, Andre & Piper drew equal to Hogan. Andre drew bigger in Los Angeles. I remember talking with someone in the office after an LA show and they remarked how the people just went crazy when Hogan came out, yet when Andre comes, we sell more tickets. Of course, Hogan had more legs as a draw then Andre and Piper did. But also, Hogan sucked as a program draw. He'd draw big with someone the first time, but second and third meetings were often disappointing, which is why they would often put Hogan in secondary markets on the night of a big arena like MSG or Chicago, because the feeling was Hogan needed to be booked like Andre, a few times a year, because he wasn't Bruno whose gates went up for rematches. And when Austin was hurt, business was so hot that Rock drew just as good, but Austin on PPV was much bigger than Rock.
All eras are different anyway.
Piper drew slightly bigger in Northern California (because a Hogan vs. Jesse feud that never happened but was advertised and Hogan ended up going against other guys although fans who bought tickets didn't know it, stiffed so bad and Piper vs. Snuka and Tonga Kid--another big draw I didn't mention--was such a hot program that year).
Hogan had plenty of periods he didn't draw well. Warrior started outdrawing Hogan after the Zahorian trial but he also had no legs. Vince benched Hogan in 1992. When Hogan came back in 1993, he didn't draw well and quit himself.