Some Facts about the year of 2004 for the WWE

[Mr. JL]

PPV Main Eventers so far This Year (in order from most to least)
1. Triple H - Wrestle Mania XX, Backlash, Bad Blood and Vengeance
2. Chris Benoit - Wrestle Mania XX, Backlash and Vengeance
2. Shawn Michaels - Wrestle Mania XX, Backlash and Bad Blood
3. Eddie Guerrero - No Way Out, Judgment Day
4. John Bradshaw Layfield - Judgment Day
4. Brock Lesnar - No Way Out
5. Undertaker
6. Dudley Boyz


Come Backs
Edge & William Regal

NEW Comers
Hiroko, Kenzo Suzuki, Luther Reigns, Mordecai and Tyson Tomko


The Coach has more Pay Per View Singles Matches than RVD this year.
Coach 2
RVD 0

[Dave Youell]

PPV Main Eventers so far This Year (in order from most to least)
1. Triple H - Wrestle Mania XX, Backlash, Bad Blood and Vengeance
2. Chris Benoit - Wrestle Mania XX, Backlash and Vengeance
2. Eddie Guerrero - No Way Out, Judgment Day and Great American Bash
2. Shawn Michaels - Wrestle Mania XX, Backlash and Bad Blood
3. Brock Lesnar - No Way Out


Come Backs
Edge & William Regal

NEW Comers
Hiroko, Kenzo Suzuki, Luther Reigns, Mordecai and Tyson Tomko


The Coach has more Pay Per View Singles Matches than RVD this year.
Coach 2
RVD 0
Ummm ok some of those are wrong.

JBL has been in 2 main events

and yes the coach has been in 2 more singles matches but RVD has made more appearances and had more matches in PPV's

and what's the point of all this again?

[Cruiserweight 3:16]

The main event for Great American Bash was Taker v Dudleys

[The Mackem]

What criteria are you using for Royal Rumble's main event? The title matches or the rumble itself?

[Dave Youell]

The main event for Great American Bash was Taker v Dudleys
Double main events.

There's no way a world title match shouldn't be considered main event.

Unless it's Big Show Vs Bossman

[The Mackem]

*edit*

Big Show vs Bossman w/ Albert

[The CyNick]

Guerrero main evented Mania.

[Oxstar]

*edit*

Big Show vs Bossman w/ Albert
That match fucking sucked, actually come to think about it nearly everything fucking sucks today.

[Xero]

There's no way a world title match shouldn't be considered main event.
Eddie/Kurt WMXX
Brock/Holly Royal Rumble

Then those would count too...

[Thriller]

Holly and main event are 2 thing i never wanna hear in the same sentence ever again again *shutters*

[Londoner]

ah ive got that tape with big show vs bossman, i wasnt a fan until 2000 so when i brought the tape i was like, wtf?@the card saying that was for the wwf title, that match only lasted like 10 mins or something, if i remember correctly...

[The CyNick]

A lot of this is subjective because its hard to say what draws on some of these shows (especially the co-brand shows). Mania had 5 main events, but at the same time I'm not so sure if any one match actually had a huge impact on the buyrate (for the record from my recollection Lesnar-Goldberg got the most advertising). You cant just credit HHH-Benoit-HBK as the main just because they went on last. Because by that logic HHH-Jerihco was the main event of 18, and clearly that wans't the case.

Speaking of which just because a match is for the world/WWE title doesn't mean its a main event. Benoit-Kane at Bad Blood and Lesnar-Holly at the Rumble are two recent examples of title matches that I would say had NOTHING to do with the buyrate their show did.

With the Rumble, I dont tend to credit any of the specific matches, I think the main event is always the Rumble itself and thats what sells it.

[Mayo]

Main event = last match.

Does it not? Look at boxing, that is always the case I'm quite sure. Even if one match deserves to be the main event, I don't think it should qualify if its not at the end.

[Xero]

So, then you would have to consider that Spike Dudley was once a main eventer, because he's been in a few Rumbles... And Nunzio... And Rico... I could go on and on... Fact is, the "main event" is not always the last match, in the sence that it's the most important of the night.

Good example would be Taker vs. Dudleys at GAB... Eddie/Bradshaw was the most important of the night, since it was for the title... Would you consider the Dudley Boyz main eventers just because they headlined a PPV? I know I wouldnt... Upper Midcard maybe, but not Main Eventers...

[Mayo]

So, then you would have to consider that Spike Dudley was once a main eventer, because he's been in a few Rumbles... And Nunzio... And Rico... I could go on and on... Fact is, the "main event" is not always the last match, in the sence that it's the most important of the night.

Good example would be Taker vs. Dudleys at GAB... Eddie/Bradshaw was the most important of the night, since it was for the title... Would you consider the Dudley Boyz main eventers just because they headlined a PPV? I know I wouldnt... Upper Midcard maybe, but not Main Eventers...

Those guys in the Rumble aren't main eventers because they only do it once a year. I was defining what a main event was, not a main eventer. Main eventers compete in main events regularly and on a consistent basis.

Taker/Dudleyz shouldn't have been the last match, but the Smackdown booking is fucked. Another reason that they possibly had Taker/Dudleys as the last match is because Bearer 'died' at the end, so they needed to have that big effect at the end of the show. It would also be really hard to clean up and stuff if it happened as the second last match.

[The CyNick]

Jericho vs Triple H should clear up the idea that the last match is the main event.

That show was built on match and one match only; Hulk Hogan vs The Rock. However, they decided to put the title match on last just because it seemed like the right thing to do (make the title seem important), but it was clear from the fans that Hogan-Rock was the main event, even though it went on earlier in the show. So no, last match does not equal main event.

As for the Spike Dudley thing in the Rumble, you wouldn't give credit to the people in the match most times, because its the Rumble match as a concept that sells the PPV. So you wouldn't give any of the guys credit for the show because for the most part they are inter-changeable.

[.44 Magdalene]

I always considered the main event to be THE last match of the night...since all the other matches are leading up to it. You can't lead up to a match that's already happened, right? So the last match of the night gets the most leading-to.

But it's debatable. I just always called the last match the Main Event.

[Mayo]

Cynick, watch the Jericho/HHH match again, and see if the commentators called it the main event. (I don't actually know what they said, but I'm curious myself)

I think that technically the main event is the last match because they program the last match as the main event so that people watch everything before it. However, from a common sense point of view, the most important match should be the main event, even if it isn't the last match.

[Xero]

Those guys in the Rumble aren't main eventers because they only do it once a year. I was defining what a main event was, not a main eventer. Main eventers compete in main events regularly and on a consistent basis.

Taker/Dudleyz shouldn't have been the last match, but the Smackdown booking is fucked. Another reason that they possibly had Taker/Dudleys as the last match is because Bearer 'died' at the end, so they needed to have that big effect at the end of the show. It would also be really hard to clean up and stuff if it happened as the second last match.
Very true...

Ive noticed that sometimes on Raw (Not PPV, but still), they have the billed main event as the "main event" for the first hour, then have something else as the actual main event...

I dunno how they do it now (Havent gone to one in a while), but at House Shows they used to do the same... I remember Taker, when he was big (98-99?), as the match before intermission, then another match, not billed as the main event, go on last...

[The CyNick]

Cynick, watch the Jericho/HHH match again, and see if the commentators called it the main event. (I don't actually know what they said, but I'm curious myself)

I think that technically the main event is the last match because they program the last match as the main event so that people watch everything before it. However, from a common sense point of view, the most important match should be the main event, even if it isn't the last match.

They probably did call it "the main event", but it isn't the match that drew the buyrate, which is what the "main event" really is. The order of the matches is meaningless.

Back in the day when they used to have Saturday Night's Main Event, Hogan's match which was always the main event but rarely went on last. Because the show started at 11:30PM they would usually put the Hogan match on first or second in order to get in by Midnight, or shortly thereafter. Some of those shows might have ended with something like the Killer Bees vs the Powers of Pain, but nobody would argue that match was the main event of the show.

Same thing even happens on RAW now. Often they'll promote a match big time, and then put it on at 10:00 and save some angle for the end of the show. On those kinds of shows a match like Hurricane vs Tajiri might be the last wrestling match, but again nobody would argue thats the main event.

Main Event = What sells the show.

Position on the card is meaningless for the most part.

[Mayo]

I basically said the same thing, CyNick. They call the last match the main event, but the actual main event that draws doesn't necessarily have to be last on the card :y: