IYO: Do high rankings go hand in hand with great wrestling?

[GD]

In your opinion: Do high rankings go hand in hand with great wrestling? If my memory serves me right I remember the Draft Lottery edition of Raw back in 2004 drew a whooping 4.0 whereas in the very next week, we saw one of the most awesome Raw main events of all times as Chris Benoit defended his Heavyweight Championship against Triple-H in a 60 minute Iron Man Match which drew only 3.5. Share your opinions...

[Pardeep 619]

That never happened. Benoit and HHH had the iron match in July 2004, whereas the draft took place in April 2004

[GD]

So sorry Pradeep paji...

[Pardeep 619]

So sorry Pradeep paji...

Erm.. I forgive you ???

What I do remember about the week after the 2004 draft was the great match between Shelton Benjamin and HHH. I wish WWE would release that on a DVD.

[Afterlife]

Ratings only apply to which people are being watched in regards to what they're watching. Meaning, in the first place, the idea that all wrestling fans are contributing to any given ratings system at a time is quite the gamble, but also that anyone who might watch is compelled to do so.

If you saw shitty matches last week, you may not tune in this week when the matches are awesome. So, to assume a great correllation, would be kinda screwy.

By the same token, a long run of good programming will keep viewers coming back, as well as bringing new fans thru word of mouth. So, chances are good that better matches would lead to better numbers, should they occur in continual fashion.

But, we also can't forget that WWE is not just matches, but a melding of various types of entertainment centered around wrestling. The mathes can be great, but you can bet your sweet bippy I turn the station everytime Cena and Mickie are talking to each other.

Anyway...I guess the short answer is just "no".

[Lock Jaw]

Back in the Attitude day, when ratings were sky-high, the non-wrestling probably outweighed the wrestling. The matches were short and quick, while non-wrestling segments littered the show and could last more than half an hour at times.

At least, that's the way I remember it.

[Xero]

If the booking and storylines are great the wrestling can be sub-par and they can still pull fantastic ratings.

WWE has the right idea in that the entertainment aspect sells much better than the wrestling itself, but they're going about it all wrong.

[Kane Knight]

I voted yes, but I don't mean this absolutely. There's just no middle ground beyond "Can't Say," And I can say.

It also depends on what you mean by great wrestling, but generally, better quality wrestling shows draw in more people, which means yes.

[Kane Knight]

The flip side is that the Draft used to be new and fresh, and that was interesting. People like the idea of a new concept, especially if it might actually change things up. Wrestling or not, that sounds good.

[MCEazy]

Not necessarily, at least in this day and age. Theres alot of "casual" wrestling fans out there who'd rather watch interesting storylines and promos as apposed to great matches.

[The Optimist]

Sports entertaiment is show buisness, wrestling talent is a close second to acting performance.

[BigDaddyCool]

The quaility of the the wrestling means nothing when not promoted.

[The CyNick]

I dont think you can say good wrestling equals higher ratings. If it did, WWE would never have a guy like Batista as World Champion.

I do think a longer match with compelling characters that fans care about will increase ratings. As long as the match isnt dreadful to watch, people will stay interested. I think ratings trends have shown that a strong TV match will increase ratings if people care about who is involved. Whether its a 3 star or a 4 star match probably doesnt matter all that much.

However, if you always do long matches, they become less special, so everything has to be done in moderation.

[Destor]

If wrestling = ratings people would have watched when Bret was on top.

[Fox]

I think RAW beat Nitro out-and-out on October 4th, 1999.

Therefore, my answer is a giant NO.

[Kane Knight]

I dont think you can say good wrestling equals higher ratings. If it did, WWE would never have a guy like Batista as World Champion.


You consider that Batista has never been champion or even main eventer during any form of peak ratings, though....

[HeartBreakMan2k]

Yes but Shawn Michaels and all the Harts feuded during one of the worse rating slumps as well.