Latest news on Edge/Cena, Mick Foley's WM involvement
 

from LOP.




Edge is conspicuously absent from the Road To WrestleMania Tournament, but according to the Wrestling-Observer, he will likely take on Cena in his final match in the title picture at Saturday Night's Main Event.

The speculation is that Edge will then move on to wrestle Mick Foley at WWE WrestleMania in a match designed to solidify Edge as an integral part of WWE television.




my thoughts what a bunch of crap.:roll:

My thoughts? Triple H holding another Canadian back.

And they couldn't have done that, y'know, with him as champion?

Even the WWE doesn't hate us that much.

No, they'd rather turn their back on the three highest-rated episodes of RAW in four months by reverting to a face champion that was being booed by a large percentage of the audience.

LIVE SEX!!111!!11

Yeah, I don't know why they'd put it back on a guy who was now getting bigger pops than ever, over a guy who was getting less and les sof a reaction. Besides, the ratings cuts both ways. We could justify the belt being on Triple H perpetually.

Edge was Ratings

RATED R!111!!!!111

We could. And there's certainly an argument to be made. The ratings were higher with HHH as champion than they were when Cena had it, just like they were higher with Edge.

Now, I can understand that first night after NYR, because of the Live Sex thing, but the ratings stayed high for the following two weeks, actually going up two-tenths of a point between the second and third. They stayed at 4.5 last week, but they're always high the night after a PPV.

Tonight's rating will definitely help in deciding this argument. Not that it will be the decisive factor, but if RAW can maintain viewers with Cena as champion, then it takes a little wind out of the "Edge = Ratings" sails.

Takes a LOT of wind out of the sails.

Then again, so did the crowd being dead for Edge at the Rumble, and popping for the guy they were booing before...:|

Was Cena a Face and was Edge a heel? Could that have something to do with it?

Don't give me they cheered Angle. They cheerd Angle becasuse he's Kurt Angle. I like Edge but still Edge isn't on Angle's level.

Heels are supposed to draw no reaction?

Bah gawd, the next thing you're going to tell me is the quarter hours in which people stopped watching Raw to avoid HHH proved how much of a draw he was!

Yeah, your argument works really well, what with the dead crowd reactions to him...:rofl:

I'm sorry, now you're reaching for an argument.

Edge was getting booed, and was getting booed tonight rather loud mind you.

Also in correction of my last post I read yours wrong and I thought you said Edge was getting booed but you said he got no reaction. So my mistake there.

Okay, just for shits and giggles, I plotted out all the RAW title reigns over the last two years (dating back to Benoit's post-WM XX reign) to see who drew what kind of ratings.

Benoit's 2004 title reign averaged a 3.8 rating.
Randy Orton beat him, but averaged only a 3.6 rating as champion.
Orton dropped the strap to HHH, who also only got 3.6.
Then the title was held up, and the average rating fell to 3.4.
Triple H wins it back in the Elimination Chamber, and his average rating is 3.9.
Batista wins it at Mania, and until the draft lottery, he averages a 4.0.
Cena is brought over from SD and until he drops it to Edge, he draws a 3.8.
Edge's three-week reign averaged a 4.4.

So, yeah, over the last two years, WWE drew more with Edge as the champion than anyone else. We'll see what happens to the RAW rating now that the strap is back on Cena. If it stays high, it could just be that more people are watching RAW now. If it doesn't, I think it'd just be stubborn not to notice that a three-week ratings spike at the same time as Edge's title regin was more than coincidental.

A three weeks rating spike is one thing but take it for what it is, just a three week spike. Now I am not sure of figures so may be out by a long shot here but I am pretty sure all the reigns you listed lasted much longer than three weeks and all those reigns probably drew one too two high ratings right?

If I am right (stop reading if I am not) then the average of lower rated shows (and bare in mind the champ is not the be all and end all of a show rating) would drag down the overall reign average making Edges ratings good but probably a little bit lopsided due to lack of time as champion.

hhh suked and that iz all

Well this shows up the talent of the WWE writing team.I don't feel right using talent and WWE writers in the same sentence.

*Smells blood in the water... The blood of a n00b who uses internet slang*

Here are your grammar mistakes sonny boy.

HHH (We capitalize because it's a proper name) sucked (you forgot the "c") and that (Holy crap, you wrote two words with no fuck-ups. GOOD JOB.) is (not a "z," rather an abused and almost forgotten letter that we call an "s") all (very good, you finished strong without a mistake.... Oh wait. You forgot the period. The end of the sentance requires punctuation. You couldn't really call this much of a sentance, but for the sake of todays exercize, call it one.)

Your phrase should read like this:

"HHH sucked and that is all."

Nice try, do come again later.

:nono:

Wow, and since Edge is the only wrestler who was on those nights, that again SO proves your point! My mind has been changed!

Again, Triple H logic. If the show is doing good, I must be the reason.

Allow me to predict the responses you will get:

EEEEEEEEEDGE!!!!! EDGE RULES!!!! TOP DRAWING CHAMPION!!!! WAAAAAAAA!

Someone, please stop me if I left anything out. Between the fanboyism and the intellectual dishonesty, there may have been a rational, intelligent point I glazed over in the middle.

omg u totly mizzed teh point

WWE had/has no other somewhat interesting storyline going on though. I kind of like HBK/Vonce storyline but I don't think it's a ratings grabber.

Edge and Cena was the only thing Raw had going. The rumble wasn't even really built up this year.

So the Edge and Cena feud probably is a good reason for the rating increase.

Edge winning the title was a hotshot, which by design is a short term attention getter. So before the Copeland Cocksuckers filter in and talk about how Edge was the saviour of WWE, keep in mind it was 3 shows coming of a major hotshot angle, with other hotshotted things thrown in as well, such as TLC for the WWE Title, Angle/Michaels, Live Sex etc. Yes, Edge deserves commendation for being a success as opposed to the failure he was expected to be, but lets not start getting ahead of ourselves saying Edge was the highest rated champion and was a spectacularly major deal, because the circumstances are completely different, and it's a silly argument to make based of just three shows.

They had NO interesting storyline, by that logic.

I found McMAhon Michaels to be better, and THAT had me flipping around for something to watch.

And since personal preference dictates what the fans watch...Check and Mate.

(Disclaimer: The above statement has no grounding in reality, but until I'm presented with an argument that does, I'll probably just keep recycling their bullshit, half-assed logic. :) Have a nice day).

It was the only new thing going on those weeks, yes. It was the only thing that we hadn't been seeing for weeks leading up to NYR. Those three weeks, we got more of the HBK/Vince storyline, more of the Trish/Mickie storyline, more of HHH/Big Show. The only major storyline that was new during that time period was Edge as the champion.

Now, obviously, it's not the only factor, and I'm certain I said that on more than one occasion, so the sarcasm goes unappreciated as it's not grounded in anything.

I'm merely saying that for three weeks without Cena as the champion, ratings were higher than they ever were with him as champion. Coincidence or not, those are the facts.

During Cena's seven months as RAW champion, RAW only drew at least a 4.3 (the lowest of Edge's three weeks) three times. Cena gets it three times in seven months, Edge gets it three times in three weeks.

Batista managed it twice in nine weeks.

Triple H's early 2005 run never got ratings that high.

Ditto for HHH's pre-vacancy run.

Orton didn't do it, either.

Benoit did it twice in his six-month reign.

So, yeah, they all had low-rated weeks which Edge never had a chance to do during his short reign, but none of them had as many 4.3+ ratings during their entire reigns as RAW had during each of the three weeks Edge had the gold.

It was a hotshot! Of course it's going to boost ratings in a short burst, that's the point.

I'm looking forward to Edge vs. Foley

All I'm saying is that it didn't just boost them. It boosted them to their highest point in two years.

For a couple of weeks, and it wasn't even on it own in terms of what was hotshotted.

IMO Edge is by far the best heel at the moment, did you hear the boos he got on raw yesterday? Awesome.

Maybe if they gave him a few more shows to run with the title we wouldnt have to base our arguements of 3 shows.

Hmmm...If this were an era of stars and champions, that might be a salient point.

Exactly, and given that things were looking good, it was a bad move to take it of him, and this is coming from someone who doesn't like Edge.

If only the WWE had our insider knowledge and understanding of the inner workings of wrestling. :lol:

I think Edge will be champion again one day. I believe WWE was just testing out how he did as champ. Edge and Foley should have a great match. I remember in 2000 they had some pure gold segments and I remember when Foley got fired as commish how he got conchairto by Edge.

If they wanted to test him as champ, perhaps a longer run would've worked?

Well what, pray tell, was the reason for the three-week rating spike, since it clearly wasn't Edge's title reign?

"He also likes Pop Tarts and scratching himself what do you want me to do about it"

Would you like to buy this rock? It wards against tigers. What proof do I have? You don't see any tigers around, do you?

Ratings went down steadily after Live sex as far as I can tell. By the week before the RR, ratings were consistent with normal ratings for a Raw in this era. Wow, there was a spike for LIVE SEX, and then things settled down? I don't get it, boss...

Thankfully, Edgeheads no-sell even the Nielsen ratings.

It was up for one Segment not the whole Raw. The live Sex segment did a 5.2 while raw did like a 4.2(or something around that) for the whole.

And what you say is "settling down" is the highest rated in years.

Legend, I'm not going to respond to you.

You misread "no reaction" or whatever I said as "booing," and came up with some retarded comeback based on that, and you're misreading me again.

Please, actually learn to READ my comments before you open your mouth. I know you're not this stupid.

I'm not totally heartless, the above is the comment which demonstrates you have no fucking clue what I'm saying. :y:

This time I read it correctly. So I guess your genius is way greater then mine. I can't fathom what you are saying KK. So I am truly not on your level when it comes to talking about wrestling.

Thank you KK for showing me that :y:

Where did you get your numbers?

According to <a href="http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/wwf/wwfraw.htm">Wrestling Information Archives</a>, which I've found to be pretty accurate, the Live Sex episode got a 4.3, the following week got a 4.5, and the week before the Rumble, it was still 4.5.

Now, call me crazy, but that looks like they actually went up.

No, you clearly don't understand what I am saying, or you wouldn't say:

This is, in fact, NOT what I said, unless the 3.7 Nielsen media reports as the Raw right before the Rumble is, somehow, "the highest rated in years."

Sorry, you're wrong. This is not about my intellect versus yours, this is about your misreading me yet again. I was very clearly referencing that Raw's ratings slid down in numbers by the time the Rumble came around, not disputing the initial sale of "live sex."

I can't believe I actually had to explain this, but I guess anyone who is stupid enough to read "no reaction" as "boos...."

Buy they didn't go down.

The Highest rated Raw in years wasn't the Live Sex Raw. It was the Raw or two after the Live sex.

The Ratings went up with Edge and stayed up.That's what Loopy has been saying throughout the whole thread. Yes granted hotshotting the title to Edge had something to do with it, but Edge picked the ball up and ran with it.

So Edge was not only ratings, but continual ratings.

3.7 is the record high you're talking about? Those were the last ratings <s>before Raw.</s> for Raw before the Royal Rumble. The Nielsens don't lie.

That contradicts Loopy's statements as well, meaning that you're contradicting both the actual source, and the averages put forth by the only guy with an even remotely logical argument.

me srry me no speak single syllables

The high that Edge did is like a 4.5. Which also is the one that loopy and I were talking about. This 3.7 in which you bring up was not metioned by us.

Well, whaddya know? My source failed me. I just checked Nielsen's official site, and KK's right about the 3.7 the week before the Rumble. I don't know where WIA was getting their numbers.

I feel so dirty.

You lose. Loopy just backed me up. The Neilsens > j00.

So instead of trying to pretend that I'm being high and mighty, let's pretend I was trying to be factual and informed, hmm?

WIA? Which site is that?

To be fair, I was being informed, just not factual. I went and got numbers to back up my argument.

They were just really really wrong.

God, I feel like punt. If you need me, I'll just be listening to some emo music and opening my wrists.

The one that I linked to. The Wrestling Information Archive.

LOL

To be fair, I wasn't addressing you...

Now, legend was insisting on specific ratings, while you were dealing with an averages argument.

Just for the record, the 3.7 rating of Edge's last Raw as champ was the same as the ratings of Cena's last night as champ (the Raw prior to NYR was also a 3.7)

If this seems redundant, it's mostly because legend has shown he needs help, and Afterlife just doesn't get it because I try to be esoteric by using things like facts and actual ratings.

What the hell!!! Jesus I never heard anything about this 3.7 either. I only heard that Edge got in the fours from like every other site in existence that I went to.

:rofl:

:rofl:

Honestly, the ratings argument was shit in the first place. But since folks saw fit to bring it up...

But I suppose that's too obscure a concept for you too. :yes:

BTW, Nielsen Media, the actual people who take these ratings, probably know a little more than internet dirt sheets.

Damn I gotta be more of an ass about things nobody mentions me ever :'(

Start talking in ways people don't understand you.

This is a wrestling forum, so apparently it doesn't take much.

FUCK YOU, Skippord!

(Better?)

<h6>Chris fucking Sabin rules...</h6>

I mock Skippord all the time.

I was arguing the same numbers as loopy was btw. Not that it matters now anyway.

Yes, and when challenged, one of you was smart enough to check the Nielsens.

touche

The fucker's just an attention whore.

Seriously, it's all "me me me."

What the Hell, I've never raised a needier n00b.

This vexes me Mr Knigger

The Edge/Cena fuid is alot better than the one Cena had with Jericho and possibly the one with angle. Why end it before Wrestle Mania. If it happerns it will be better than HHH in the Wrestle Mania main event agian :nono:
The best thing that could happern is that it ends up being Edge vs Cena and someone like Masters (everyone likes an underdog right). That would leave HHH free for what I for one want to see. Faital 4 way for the IC title Flair,Show,HHH and Van Dam

I Agree that this cena fued is alot better then jerichos one...angles one was just getting boring.

but i would rather have hhh beat the crap out of cena as soon as possible

and have edge the ic champ

Angle and Jericho's feuds with Cena got boring because Everyone knew that Cena was going to win, and there was no interest required. Jericho's was even more tedious, b/c we knew he was leaving, so there was no hope. But Angle's was ridiculous, b/c if he "can't beat" Cena the first time, he's obviously not going to, and they had nobody else to run with at the time. Made for tedious wins over our Olympic Hero. Edge's looks better because it's only been on for one month, they've had, like, two matches and Edge is a fresh member to the title scene. It's new and interesting, ere go, it's viewed as 'better'.

HHH will headline with Cena and, as most of us hope, will beat him. It's not about feud, it's about ratings and names, b/c it's the Big One. I"m sure Edge will be sticking his nose in the title scene again, and I think he and H will have a decent battle somewhere down the road. Besides, money-wise, nobody beats H--not even Cena.

First of all, let's clear something up: Everyone loves an underdog; nobody like Chris Masters.

:shifty:

But as for the title, it seems you are confused about a few things. Number one, being that Flair needs a title shot. The fact is, Flair shouldn't have a title now because he shouldn't be wrestling. He's a name, and that's all; he needs to manage, perhaps, but also to stop taking time from the new guys and the vets that can still go in the ring. HHH will not go for the IC title. He could have before, in his feud with Flair, but he didn't, b/c it doesn't matter to him. And Big Show...um, if he belongs in any title scene, after the Tag Titles, he'll be in the WT scene, b/c that's what they've been hinting at off and on for the last full year, and in my opinion, that's where he should always be. RVD is a good pick, tho. If you want a Fatal (not "faital") 4-Way, then make it RVD, Benjamin, Chavo and, say, Venis. Or, instead of Venis, make it Nick Nameth. That way, you could start another fued there, having Nameth pissed about being abandoned by Chavo after Eddie's death.

Anyway, I'm not just saying your ideas are crap. I'm saying it's crap you can learn from. Then again, this is just the opinion of me. I've been known to be wrong, myself.

The ratings still haven't fallen drastically since Edge lost the belt, so it wasn't all him, obviously.

Do you have evidence of this?

The Nielsen site isn't covering The Raw following the RR yet, and while I'm sure they do have the figures already, it'll be a while before we see them.

Besides, Edge is still in the ME scene, whether we like it or not, so we can't really derive much.

Then again, Edge is an Oasis factor, much like Coachman was for like 2 weeks.

Last weeks show did a 4.5, and this weeks did a 4.4.

According to...?

PWInsider, Observer site...it's everywhere dude.

It was actually a 4.5 this week, not 4.4.

So since the Rumble, it's been 2 more 4.5's

http://www.pwinsider.com/ViewArticle.asp?id=16171&p=1 <--- This weeks Raw rating.

See, those were the numbers I was using.

Until Nielsen proved me wrong.

Poor Loopy

:nono: I feel so betrayed.

So were the false ratings everyone was using to justify Edge's drawing power. It cuts both ways, and at this point, I think I'll wait until I see the REAL Nielsen ratings before I make any judgements.

Sup Knigga?

Fucking site took so long to post, I didn't even see this Goddamn post while I was trying to make mine.

Unfortunately, the Nielsen top 10 hasn't been updated for CABLE (Broadcast is on the 30th, Cable is on the 23rd).

Sippin on a 40 yo

Rollin in ya escalade

Hold on...what? False ratings? Where did this all come from?

Is Kane Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?

You better thank Dave Chappelle

The ratings for the week before the RR are represented by Nielsen Media as 3.7, well below that which is being represented online.

Basically, the sources quoted to argue the ratings Edge drew were wrong, and one only needed to look at the actual Nielsen ratings to see that they were patently false.

Word yo