But that speaks to a bigger picture where they're are no memorable angles. Punk's end to Money in the Bank is memorable, in a year or two maybe it won't be. Different guys on the writing team now compared to then too.syxxpakk wrote:Probably the problem then. Jeff and Edge meant a pretty big deal as far as business went. Jeff in particular at one point was second only to Cena in the company and arguably at times above Cena briefly.
But anyway the point is they were booked like crap and still managed to click with the crowd to become big draws. CM Punk is booked like crap but can't seem to get through that like they did. He's just not going to be a draw on that level, it seems.
The WWE Thread
Re: The WWE Thread
Admin note: User permanently banned.
Re: The WWE Thread
That seems to me to be making excuses for why Punk isn't more successful than he is instead of just biting the bullet and accepting he's not someone fans are buying into. He's a great wrestler and a great character and I wish he was bringing in business. He was given a hell of a push in July and the ratings plummeted pretty quickly. It is what it is.JSWO wrote:But that speaks to a bigger picture where they're are no memorable angles. Punk's end to Money in the Bank is memorable, in a year or two maybe it won't be. Different guys on the writing team now compared to then too.syxxpakk wrote:Probably the problem then. Jeff and Edge meant a pretty big deal as far as business went. Jeff in particular at one point was second only to Cena in the company and arguably at times above Cena briefly.
But anyway the point is they were booked like crap and still managed to click with the crowd to become big draws. CM Punk is booked like crap but can't seem to get through that like they did. He's just not going to be a draw on that level, it seems.
Re: The WWE Thread
syxxpakk wrote:That seems to me to be making excuses for why Punk isn't more successful than he is instead of just biting the bullet and accepting he's not someone fans are buying into. He's a great wrestler and a great character and I wish he was bringing in business. He was given a hell of a push in July and the ratings plummeted pretty quickly. It is what it is.JSWO wrote:But that speaks to a bigger picture where they're are no memorable angles. Punk's end to Money in the Bank is memorable, in a year or two maybe it won't be. Different guys on the writing team now compared to then too.syxxpakk wrote:Probably the problem then. Jeff and Edge meant a pretty big deal as far as business went. Jeff in particular at one point was second only to Cena in the company and arguably at times above Cena briefly.
But anyway the point is they were booked like crap and still managed to click with the crowd to become big draws. CM Punk is booked like crap but can't seem to get through that like they did. He's just not going to be a draw on that level, it seems.
Ratings as a whole are pretty equal to what they were before the Punk angle began.
Admin note: User permanently banned.
Re: The WWE Thread
No way, dude.
Let's do the math. First, in the interest of fairness to Punk, we'll exclude any ratings from the time period that the Rock was having an effect on business in the lead-up to to Wrestlemania. That's 2/14-4/3. Now we can include them if you want, but that's going to skew the argument against Punk.
So from January-June, excluding the Rock episodes, you get an average 3.51.
From June 26-end of the year you get 3.04.
In ratings, that's a big drop.
Now here's what's even worse - the last four weeks of December all dropped under 3.0. So they're not really equal at all, actually. And the drop off the last four weeks of this year compared to last year? Monstrous. Now, I'm inclined to agree that booking is a large part of it the ratings overall. But the fact is - if Punk was connecting like you're saying he is/should, then the ratings would improve regardless of the booking (as with Edge or Hardy).
Let's do the math. First, in the interest of fairness to Punk, we'll exclude any ratings from the time period that the Rock was having an effect on business in the lead-up to to Wrestlemania. That's 2/14-4/3. Now we can include them if you want, but that's going to skew the argument against Punk.
So from January-June, excluding the Rock episodes, you get an average 3.51.
From June 26-end of the year you get 3.04.
In ratings, that's a big drop.
Now here's what's even worse - the last four weeks of December all dropped under 3.0. So they're not really equal at all, actually. And the drop off the last four weeks of this year compared to last year? Monstrous. Now, I'm inclined to agree that booking is a large part of it the ratings overall. But the fact is - if Punk was connecting like you're saying he is/should, then the ratings would improve regardless of the booking (as with Edge or Hardy).
Re: The WWE Thread
December is usually a poor ratings month anyway due to the Holidays and football usually picking big games for Monday nights with playoff implications. How often during that period you quoted was Punk the featured performer in comparison to Cena or Miz?syxxpakk wrote:No way, dude.
Let's do the math. First, in the interest of fairness to Punk, we'll exclude any ratings from the time period that the Rock was having an effect on business in the lead-up to to Wrestlemania. That's 2/14-4/3. Now we can include them if you want, but that's going to skew the argument against Punk.
So from January-June, excluding the Rock episodes, you get an average 3.51.
From June 26-end of the year you get 3.04.
In ratings, that's a big drop.
Now here's what's even worse - the last four weeks of December all dropped under 3.0. So they're not really equal at all, actually. And the drop off the last four weeks of this year compared to last year? Monstrous. Now, I'm inclined to agree that booking is a large part of it the ratings overall. But the fact is - if Punk was connecting like you're saying he is/should, then the ratings would improve regardless of the booking (as with Edge or Hardy).
Admin note: User permanently banned.
- Rudas_Iskariot
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 5:14 pm
- Location: Chicago
Re: The WWE Thread
i would like to point out that's how the ratings fluctuate every year for RAW.syxxpakk wrote:No way, dude.
Let's do the math. First, in the interest of fairness to Punk, we'll exclude any ratings from the time period that the Rock was having an effect on business in the lead-up to to Wrestlemania. That's 2/14-4/3. Now we can include them if you want, but that's going to skew the argument against Punk.
So from January-June, excluding the Rock episodes, you get an average 3.51.
From June 26-end of the year you get 3.04.
In ratings, that's a big drop.
Now here's what's even worse - the last four weeks of December all dropped under 3.0. So they're not really equal at all, actually. And the drop off the last four weeks of this year compared to last year? Monstrous. Now, I'm inclined to agree that booking is a large part of it the ratings overall. But the fact is - if Punk was connecting like you're saying he is/should, then the ratings would improve regardless of the booking (as with Edge or Hardy).
Re: The WWE Thread
While true, ratings are still lower while he's been a focal point versus the beginning of the year or this time last year. So your assessment that ratings are barely different with him on top is not true.JSWO wrote:December is usually a poor ratings month anyway due to the Holidays and football usually picking big games for Monday nights with playoff implications. How often during that period you quoted was Punk the featured performer in comparison to Cena or Miz?syxxpakk wrote:No way, dude.
Let's do the math. First, in the interest of fairness to Punk, we'll exclude any ratings from the time period that the Rock was having an effect on business in the lead-up to to Wrestlemania. That's 2/14-4/3. Now we can include them if you want, but that's going to skew the argument against Punk.
So from January-June, excluding the Rock episodes, you get an average 3.51.
From June 26-end of the year you get 3.04.
In ratings, that's a big drop.
Now here's what's even worse - the last four weeks of December all dropped under 3.0. So they're not really equal at all, actually. And the drop off the last four weeks of this year compared to last year? Monstrous. Now, I'm inclined to agree that booking is a large part of it the ratings overall. But the fact is - if Punk was connecting like you're saying he is/should, then the ratings would improve regardless of the booking (as with Edge or Hardy).
Re: The WWE Thread
All due respect to CM Punk but he nor ANYONE else equals what Rock has done for the WWE in 2011 and thats a fact jack! :p
Re: The WWE Thread
Yeah, Rock has been the biggest draw this year. But even he fell off by November.FairPlay wrote:All due respect to CM Punk but he nor ANYONE else equals what Rock has done for the WWE in 2011 and thats a fact jack! :p
Re: The WWE Thread
^ I wouldn't say he fell off any. He was still a kick a** mother you know what to me and his match at Series just shows that he's still got it (not that I thought he "lost" it to begin with but still...). ^.^
Re: The WWE Thread
FairPlay wrote:^ I wouldn't say he fell off any. He was still a kick a** mother you know what to me and his match at Series just shows that he's still got it (not that I thought he "lost" it to begin with but still...). ^.^
It's a work kid.
Admin note: User permanently banned.
Re: The WWE Thread
Rudas_Iskariot wrote: i would like to point out that's how the ratings fluctuate every year for RAW.
This.
Admin note: User permanently banned.
Re: The WWE Thread
1. I'm not a kid. I'm 20.JSWO wrote:It's a work kid.FairPlay wrote:I wouldn't say he fell off any. He was still a kick a** mother you know what to me and his match at Series just shows that he's still got it (not that I thought he "lost" it to begin with but still...). ^.^
2. What's a work? Rock being back?
Re: The WWE Thread
FairPlay wrote:1. I'm not a kid. I'm 20.JSWO wrote:It's a work kid.FairPlay wrote:I wouldn't say he fell off any. He was still a kick a** mother you know what to me and his match at Series just shows that he's still got it (not that I thought he "lost" it to begin with but still...). ^.^
2. What's a work? Rock being back?
20 is a kid to me, and the business is a work, Dwayne is playing a character of a kick ass mother fucker. And you were 9 the last time Rock was a full time wrestler.
Admin note: User permanently banned.
Re: The WWE Thread
^ What does being 9 when Rock was a full-time wrestler have to do with anything? (o.O)
Re: The WWE Thread
FairPlay wrote:^ What does being 9 when Rock was a full-time wrestler have to do with anything? (o.O)
Putting your viewing perspective into reality, that the biggest draw at WWE currently was a full time wrestler 11 years ago. A slight at WWE booking in the last decade if you will.
Admin note: User permanently banned.
Re: The WWE Thread
^ Yeah and? Thats their fault for not putting on the best product they can with the talent they have (and if this is, then thats sad/a story all on its own)...
Re: The WWE Thread
Bump.
SEScoops reports:
SEScoops reports:
So it looks as though I was right when I said after he retired, he was good to go venture elsewhere.UFC President Dana White says Brock Lesnar is free to work for WWE after announcing his retirement from MMA last week.
Re: The WWE Thread
You should watch the video. He's completely shit-faced and I'm not 100% he was seriousFairPlay wrote:Bump.
SEScoops reports:So it looks as though I was right when I said after he retired, he was good to go venture elsewhere.UFC President Dana White says Brock Lesnar is free to work for WWE after announcing his retirement from MMA last week.
Re: The WWE Thread
The only reason I went to Capitol Punishment was Ron Killings in the main event. So he's the real draw.