|
|
Post by HandsomeHollywood on Apr 9, 2019 12:32:24 GMT -5
Had this debate come up and was wondering what people here may think.
When discussing the best wrestler of all-time, how important is money drawn to you?
To me, I don't think it should factor in that much, seeing as it has little indication of skill. Some great wrestlers haven't drawn much money and some poor ones have, etc.
I also find it to be a very WWE-leaning stat. Putting a lot of stock into it really boils the list down.
What are your guys' thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by hbkbigdaddycool on Apr 9, 2019 12:52:55 GMT -5
The WWE doesn't need a wrestler or wrestlers to draw in money. For the WWE name itself draws the fans in now. That's the only excuse I can think of as to why people still complain about what they see on WWE TV but somehow fans still come out and see it live constantly.
|
|
|
|
Post by HandsomeHollywood on Apr 9, 2019 13:33:09 GMT -5
The WWE doesn't need a wrestler or wrestlers to draw in money. For the WWE name itself draws the fans in now. That's the only excuse I can think of as to why people still complain about what they see on WWE TV but somehow fans still come out and see it live constantly. Agreed. But seeing as this is the classics board, do you use money made as a piece of evidence for someone's case as best all time? Or are you saying it's all moot in WWE as they've always made money. |
|
|
|
Post by PJ on Apr 9, 2019 13:52:29 GMT -5
Yes this is the classic board where there was territories and no internet/Network so back then it was all about the drawing power to the promoters. And back in the 70’s/80’s guys like Piper, Dusty, Graham, Andre would go to different territories and still had drawing power. But I would say Andre or Hogan were top draws. That doesn’t mean that they were the best wrestler or even the fans favorite wrestler, but rather what put the fans in the seats.
|
|
|
|
Post by rowdy1971 on Apr 9, 2019 14:13:45 GMT -5
If I owned the WWE or whatever company? Then drawing power is the number one everything because back in the day the company made the most money off house shows. If Hogan was on the show? The guys working made more money and so on. If SD Jones headlined the card, you're screwed. Now it's all merch and whatnot. So yes, drawing power is everything.
As a fan? I don't like who everyone else likes so drawing power don't mean a thing to me.
|
|
The Golden Gimmick
Mid-Carder
...but brother, I am bad. And they know I’m bad.
Joined on: Jul 25, 2003 22:13:48 GMT -5
Posts: 322
|
Post by The Golden Gimmick on Apr 10, 2019 15:21:28 GMT -5
Personally, it's not important to me at all. Wrestling is subjective and people like all sorts of different things about it. My top 10 list would look different than the general consensus.
If drawing power is the most important thing, then Hogan and Austin top all the lists and that's the end of the discussion.
Guys like Dynamite Kid, Lance Storm, Owen Hart - they could all easily go into the category of best wrestler, but they won't draw your house. As opposed to guys like Ultimate Warrior, who was notoriously shoddy in the ring, but he could sell out arenas.
Money drawn is really just a different way of saying What's the most popular, and popularity means more to the inside of the business than it does to the fans of it. I'd rather watch Wrestlemania 12's main event than Wrestlemania 3's. but that's just me.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheLastDude on Apr 10, 2019 15:29:25 GMT -5
It's the same thing as actors. We hear about how certain movies only get made because so-and-so is attached to it, or they publish a list of highest grossing actors, etc.
A wrestler's drawing power was a big deal. It may not be a direct indicator of skill, but it's obvious that the greats drew. Hogan, Andre, Flair, Lawler, Backlund, Bruno, Austin, Rock, Cena, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by LA Times on Apr 11, 2019 19:46:49 GMT -5
Drawing power does matter. Pro wrestling is a business and they need the revenue, TV ratings and full arenas.
|
|
Papi Joker
Main Eventer
INTERNATIONAL COLLECTORS LIVES MATTER
Joined on: Feb 23, 2016 23:56:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,515
|
Post by Papi Joker on Apr 11, 2019 20:04:37 GMT -5
this is exactly why ALL wrestlers get into it, it is also exactly why it is ENTERTAINMENT- MONEY MONEY MONEY
sure nowadays not so much, but then again that's why they tweet and interact with fans so they can DRAW money into their merch sales
to me it doesn't matter though
|
|
|
|
Post by HandsomeHollywood on Apr 11, 2019 21:04:44 GMT -5
Drawing power does matter. Pro wrestling is a business and they need the revenue, TV ratings and full arenas. I'm not saying it doesn't matter to the business, I'm asking if it matters to you when discussing your personal favorite wrestlers, or who you consider to be the best. Money is an indication of popularity, not prestige. Avatar was important to the movie business but I don't think it's the best movie ever. Nickelback outsold the Beatles but I wouldn't say they're better. |
|
|
|
Post by LA Times on Apr 11, 2019 21:26:47 GMT -5
Drawing power does matter. Pro wrestling is a business and they need the revenue, TV ratings and full arenas. I'm not saying it doesn't matter to the business, I'm asking if it matters to you when discussing your personal favorite wrestlers, or who you consider to be the best. Money is an indication of popularity, not prestige. Avatar was important to the movie business but I don't think it's the best movie ever. Nickelback outsold the Beatles but I wouldn't say they're better. There is a reason Bruno Sammartino, Hulk Hogan, Stone Cold and John Cena are considered 4 of the greatest of all time. |
|
|
|
Post by MKSavage on Apr 11, 2019 22:17:21 GMT -5
I'm not saying it doesn't matter to the business, I'm asking if it matters to you when discussing your personal favorite wrestlers, or who you consider to be the best. Money is an indication of popularity, not prestige. Avatar was important to the movie business but I don't think it's the best movie ever. Nickelback outsold the Beatles but I wouldn't say they're better. There is a reason Bruno Sammartino, Hulk Hogan, Stone Cold and John Cena are considered 4 of the greatest of all time. Is Cena really considered in the top 4 greatest of all-time? That's sad. Did he sell well, compared to the other three you mentioned? I could have sworn that I heard that Raw ratings hit record lows during his time (in the early 2010s), even lower on average than some of the lean years in the mid 90s (and a lot of people at that time didn't have cable back then so they couldn't watch Raw even if they wanted to). Raw and Nitro use to pull 5s and 6s in the ratings back during the Monday Night Wars, and during Cena's run they could barely do 3s, and they had no competition at that time. |
|
ClassicFan2
Main Eventer
Joined on: Oct 22, 2010 15:25:00 GMT -5
Posts: 3,251
|
Post by ClassicFan2 on Apr 12, 2019 9:26:21 GMT -5
There is a reason Bruno Sammartino, Hulk Hogan, Stone Cold and John Cena are considered 4 of the greatest of all time. Is Cena really considered in the top 4 greatest of all-time? That's sad. Did he sell well, compared to the other three you mentioned? I could have sworn that I heard that Raw ratings hit record lows during his time (in the early 2010s), even lower on average than some of the lean years in the mid 90s (and a lot of people at that time didn't have cable back then so they couldn't watch Raw even if they wanted to). Raw and Nitro use to pull 5s and 6s in the ratings back during the Monday Night Wars, and during Cena's run they could barely do 3s, and they had no competition at that time. his sales have been the top for a long time. only recently has roman reigns taken over. |
|
|
|
Post by MKSavage on Apr 12, 2019 13:14:49 GMT -5
Is Cena really considered in the top 4 greatest of all-time? That's sad. Did he sell well, compared to the other three you mentioned? I could have sworn that I heard that Raw ratings hit record lows during his time (in the early 2010s), even lower on average than some of the lean years in the mid 90s (and a lot of people at that time didn't have cable back then so they couldn't watch Raw even if they wanted to). Raw and Nitro use to pull 5s and 6s in the ratings back during the Monday Night Wars, and during Cena's run they could barely do 3s, and they had no competition at that time. his sales have been the top for a long time. only recently has roman reigns taken over. When I meant how well does he sell, I meant the wrestling aspect (house shows, PPVs buys, TV show ratings). I get that he sells well to children and pre-teens, probably some older fans, I was talking more about how well he sells which effects the product. Plus, a few wrestler's have brought this up in the past (I believe Edge and Punk), that merchandise sales can be a misnomer. I believe that Punk said that he outsold Cena per item (at the height of Punk's run) but that Cena had way more items to sell (multiple shirts, ball caps, arm bands, wrist bands, towels, dog tags, etc.) so he sold more merchandise. |
|
|
|
Post by PJ on Apr 12, 2019 13:22:32 GMT -5
When I meant how well does he sell, I meant the wrestling aspect (house shows, PPVs buys, TV show ratings). I get that he sells well to children and pre-teens, probably some older fans, I was talking more about how well he sells which effects the product. Plus, a few wrestler's have brought this up in the past (I believe Edge and Punk), that merchandise sales can be a misnomer. I believe that Punk said that he outsold Cena per item (at the height of Punk's run) but that Cena had way more items to sell (multiple shirts, ball caps, arm bands, wrist bands, towels, dog tags, etc.) so he sold more merchandise.That doesn’t make sense. If Cena had more items to sell and all was selling then he outsold Punk. Because they were selling more product. |
|
|
|
Post by MKSavage on Apr 12, 2019 13:46:09 GMT -5
When I meant how well does he sell, I meant the wrestling aspect (house shows, PPVs buys, TV show ratings). I get that he sells well to children and pre-teens, probably some older fans, I was talking more about how well he sells which effects the product. Plus, a few wrestler's have brought this up in the past (I believe Edge and Punk), that merchandise sales can be a misnomer. I believe that Punk said that he outsold Cena per item (at the height of Punk's run) but that Cena had way more items to sell (multiple shirts, ball caps, arm bands, wrist bands, towels, dog tags, etc.) so he sold more merchandise.That doesn’t make sense. If Cena had more items to sell and all was selling then he outsold Punk. Because they were selling more product. True, but what Punk was saying was if he had as many items for sale as Cena (and since he was selling more per item) then he would have been the top merchandise seller. Because Punk only had 3 or 4 items for sale and Cena had 10 or more, that was why Cena sold more items overall. |
|
|
|
Post by LA Times on Apr 12, 2019 14:42:46 GMT -5
There is a reason Bruno Sammartino, Hulk Hogan, Stone Cold and John Cena are considered 4 of the greatest of all time. Is Cena really considered in the top 4 greatest of all-time? That's sad. Did he sell well, compared to the other three you mentioned? I could have sworn that I heard that Raw ratings hit record lows during his time (in the early 2010s), even lower on average than some of the lean years in the mid 90s (and a lot of people at that time didn't have cable back then so they couldn't watch Raw even if they wanted to). Raw and Nitro use to pull 5s and 6s in the ratings back during the Monday Night Wars, and during Cena's run they could barely do 3s, and they had no competition at that time. Many fans have him on their mount Rushmore of wrestling, so he's definitely top 4 or 5. He had 10 straight years of being the top guy and who knows how bad business would've been in 2009-2014 without him |
|
|
|
Post by MKSavage on Apr 12, 2019 14:55:04 GMT -5
Is Cena really considered in the top 4 greatest of all-time? That's sad. Did he sell well, compared to the other three you mentioned? I could have sworn that I heard that Raw ratings hit record lows during his time (in the early 2010s), even lower on average than some of the lean years in the mid 90s (and a lot of people at that time didn't have cable back then so they couldn't watch Raw even if they wanted to). Raw and Nitro use to pull 5s and 6s in the ratings back during the Monday Night Wars, and during Cena's run they could barely do 3s, and they had no competition at that time. Many fans have him on their mount Rushmore of wrestling, so he's definitely top 4 or 5. He had 10 straight years of being the top guy and who knows how bad business would've been in 2009-2014 without him According to some wrestler's, and you have to take that with a grain of salt cause some could be very bitter, but he was the top guy for that long because Vince wanted it that way - not necessarily because he was the best. And it's hard to say that business would have been worse, or even better, without him. Considering that Cena has been not been the top guy for a few years and the WWE is still doing the same numbers now that they were doing with him. And, being considered the top 4 or 5 is all subjective. Just because some fans have him on their mount Rushmore doesn't mean he is in the top 4 or 5 of all-time. Chances are he is not on more people's mount Rushmore than on. |
|
|
|
Post by PJ on Apr 12, 2019 15:29:30 GMT -5
That doesn’t make sense. If Cena had more items to sell and all was selling then he outsold Punk. Because they were selling more product. True, but what Punk was saying was if he had as many items for sale as Cena (and since he was selling more per item) then he would have been the top merchandise seller. Because Punk only had 3 or 4 items for sale and Cena had 10 or more, that was why Cena sold more items overall. He could say it, but that doesn’t really make it true. It’s just speculation. I would think if the WWE thought giving him more items would have sold as well as Cena they probably would have made more. But I am guessing they felt like he was at his merchandise peak? And of course people are going to put him on their Mount Rushmore of Wrestling (no matter how wrong it is) because he’s who they grew up with. Just like Attitude Era fans like to put both Rock and Austin on theirs. When everyone clearly knows the true Mount Rushmore of Wrestling is... Bruno Hogan Flair Austin   Also let’s keep it classic as it’s getting close to going Modern while bringing up Cena’s numbers to today’s numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by MKSavage on Apr 12, 2019 18:57:05 GMT -5
True, but what Punk was saying was if he had as many items for sale as Cena (and since he was selling more per item) then he would have been the top merchandise seller. Because Punk only had 3 or 4 items for sale and Cena had 10 or more, that was why Cena sold more items overall. He could say it, but that doesn’t really make it true. It’s just speculation. I would think if the WWE thought giving him more items would have sold as well as Cena they probably would have made more. But I am guessing they felt like he was at his merchandise peak? And of course people are going to put him on their Mount Rushmore of Wrestling (no matter how wrong it is) because he’s who they grew up with. Just like Attitude Era fans like to put both Rock and Austin on theirs. When everyone clearly knows the true Mount Rushmore of Wrestling is...Bruno Hogan Flair Austin Also let’s keep it classic as it’s getting close to going Modern while bringing up Cena’s numbers to today’s numbers. True. And that is kind of the point I was making, just because someone (or many someone's) put him (or any wrestler) on their personal Mount Rushmore, it doesn't make him (or anyone) the greatest or top 4 or 5 in history. It's all subjective, not fact. |
|
