Was WWE(F) more popular during the hogan era, or the Attitude Era?

**BasicThuganomics** · 12-30-2003, 12:22 AM

Does anyone know which was a bigger Era for the WWE?
When Hogan was champ during the 80's and early 90's, or during the Attitude Era when Austin and Rock were the most popular? Is there ratings reports and PPV buyrates that would prove which era was biggest for the WWE?

**Jordan** · 12-30-2003, 12:32 AM

Attitude

**The CyNick** · 12-30-2003, 12:42 AM

Its tough to go by TV ratings and PPV buys.

Fewer people had access to PPVs back in the day, so a high buyrate in 1987 is better than an equivalent buyrate today. Most sites talk about a number for buyrates such as Survivor Series did a 1.0 buyrate, which translates to a certain number of actual buys (in that case about 500K). However, like I said even if a site lists the actual number of buys, its still not fair to compare head to head with today's number, because like I said fewer people hadaccess to the shows.

On the flip side if say Wrestlemania III did a more impressive number for 1987 than Wrestlemania X-Seven did for the standards in 2001, one would still have to consider that during most of Hogan's run on top there were anywhere between 1 and 4 PPVs a year. Whereas Austin and Rock had to sell 12 PPVs a year. So in that sense Hogan had an advantage because people weren't exposed to as much of the product, and the PPVs back then were an easier sell then they are now.

Same thing goes for TV ratings. The WWE used to have exposure on NBC, a major US network, which they never had in the Austin/Rock era. Now one could argue that was because Austin and Rock weren't as big stars as Hogan was, but I dont see it that way. Then just like the PPVs Austin and Rock had to draw ratings for 2 first run shows per week, whereas Hogan got to build up to a major network show every 8 weeks or so, or whatever it was. So you can look at the fact that Hogan-Andre did a nuge number on NBC, but is that more impressive than the fact that Austin and Rock drew the highest numbers on cable week in and week out? Its hard to say.

In terms of live events, the most successful run in wrestling history (at least in the States) was the WWE's run under Austin and Rock where at one point they were averaging over 10,000 fans per live event. That was never accomplioshed in the Hogan era, but keep in mind they ran a much larger schedule back then, so naturally that would pull down the average.

Of course the most simple number to look at is dollars earned under each guy. Hogan did draw a lot of money for Vince, but he didn't make him an on paper Billionaire for a time like Rock and Austin did. Plus Austin has records for merchandise sold which out-paced Hogan in his heyday. So for my money, and actually Vince's money as well the Attitude era under Rock and Austin was a more lucrative period. I dont know if there is any other way to prove which era was more 'popular'.

**thebitch** · 12-30-2003, 12:48 AM

imo, attitude, because I watched it more, to be completely honest.

But, as Cynick said, it would be so difficult to actually compare the two eras, simply because things have changed. PPV's are more frequent, more people have access to them. The TV shows are on different networks, and on at different times. Not to mention, the value of a dollar has gone way down.

But, Attitude was better I think.

**Draven** · 12-30-2003, 12:51 AM

Attitude

**BasicThuganomics** · 12-30-2003, 01:33 AM

Yeah I figured Attitude would have made more money, but I wasn't sure how it compared to that time. As usual, CyNick cleared up any confusion i might have had. Thanks!

**ilt_undertaker** · 12-30-2003, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jordan X

Attitude

**Hardkore Kidd J** · 12-30-2003, 12:06 PM

Attitude

12-31-2003, 11:21 AM

attitude

because Hogen suck back then and he suck now

**Disturbed316** · 12-31-2003, 12:38 PM

Hogan era

Just about every kid in our school loved watching it.

**JeRz** · 12-31-2003, 04:18 PM

Don't really know....the Attitude era was great in my opinon

**Disturbed316** · 12-31-2003, 04:22 PM

Dont get me wrong, I loved the whole Attitude era, but wrestling wasn't as popular as it was during the Hogan era.

**Fryza** · 12-31-2003, 04:23 PM

Attitude, due to the fact it got more news coverage due to the stunts it pulled, for better or worse.

**Sephiroth** · 12-31-2003, 04:30 PM

Attitude

**Head** · 12-31-2003, 05:12 PM

I'm sure there were probably more total people watching the shows during the Attitude era, but amoung kids (elementry school age), I'm sure it was a lot more popular during Hogan's days.

Like Distrubed, pretty much everbody in my elementry school watched wrestling back in the day.

**BasicThuganomics** · 12-31-2003, 07:55 PM

Kool, most people seem to say attitude, so I'll assume you all are right. One thing that, is different is that a long time ago WWF was pretty much ALL Hogan. Attitude relied mostly on main eventers like Rock, Austin, and HHH. But they also had better midcard stars and stables developed that contributed as well. I loved Hogan back in the day for sure, but Attitude was an awesome era in the WWE.

**Head** · 12-31-2003, 08:04 PM

Yeah, guys like Val Venis, Goldust, and the Godfather, while they wern't main eventers had a lot to do with creating the WWE's image at the time.

In the 80s, it was all about Hogan destroying the evil Russian/Iranian/evil foreigner.

12-30-2003, 12:22 AM	#1
BasicThuganomics WordLife Posts: 705	Was WWE(F) more popular during the hogan era, or the Attitude Era? Does anyone know which was a bigger Era for the WWE? When Hogan was champ during the 80's and early 90's, or during the Attitude Era when Austin and Rock were the most popular? Is there ratings reports and PPV buyrates that would prove which era was biggest for the WWE? I'll main event Wrestlemania! you see me you're outta luck..... You don't like what I'm saying? Well I just don't give a FUCK!!!!

12-30-2003, 01:33 AM	#6
BasicThuganomics WordLife Posts: 705	Yeah I figured Attitude would have made more money, but I wasn't sure how it compared to that time. As usual, CyNick cleared up any confusion i might have had. Thanks! I'll main event Wrestlemania! you see me you're outta luck..... You don't like what I'm saying? Well I just don't give a FUCK!!!!

12-31-2003, 07:55 PM	#16
BasicThuganomics WordLife Posts: 705	Kool, most people seem to say attitude, so I'll assume you all are right. One thing that, is different is that a long time ago WWF was pretty much ALL Hogan. Attitude relied mostly on main eventers like Rock, Austin, and HHH. But they also had better midcard stars and stables developed that contributed as well. I loved Hogan back in the day for sure, but Attitude was an awesome era in the WWE. I'll main event Wrestlemania! you see me you're outta luck..... You don't like what I'm saying? Well I just don't give a FUCK!!!!

12-30-2003, 12:32 AM	#2
Jordan It's a blood match! Posts: 27,385	Attitude

12-30-2003, 12:42 AM	#3
The CyNick Make the IWC Great Again Posts: 8,922	Its tough to go by TV ratings and PPV buys. Fewer people had access to PPVs back in the day, so a high buyrate in 1987 is better than an equivalent buyrate today. Most sites talk about a number for buyrates such as Survivor Series did a 1.0 buyrate, which translates to a certain number of actual buys (in that case about 500K). However, like I said even if a site lists the actual number of buys, its still not fair to compare head to head with today's number, because like I said fewer people hadaccess to the shows. On the flip side if say Wrestlemania III did a more impressive number for 1987 than Wrestlemania X-Seven did for the standards in 2001, one would still have to consider that during most of Hogan's run on top there were anywhere between 1 and 4 PPVs a year. Whereas Austin and Rock had to sell 12 PPVs a year. So in that sense Hogan had an advantage because people weren't exposed to as much of the product, and the PPVs back then were an easier sell then they are now. Same thing goes for TV ratings. The WWE used to have exposure on NBC, a major US network, which they never had in the Austin/Rock era. Now one could argue that was because Austin and Rock weren't as big stars as Hogan was, but I dont see it that way. Then just like the PPVs Austin and Rock had to draw ratings for 2 first run shows per week, whereas Hogan got to build up to a major network show every 8 weeks or so, or whatever it was. So you can look at the fact that Hogan-Andre did a nuge number on NBC, but is that more impressive than the fact that Austin and Rock drew the highest numbers on cable week in and week out? Its hard to say. In terms of live events, the most successful run in wrestling history (at least in the States) was the WWE's run under Austin and Rock where at one point they were averaging over 10,000 fans per live event. That was never accomplioshed in the Hogan era, but keep in mind they ran a much larger schedule back then, so naturally that would pull down the average. Of course the most simple number to look at is dollars earned under each guy. Hogan did draw a lot of money for Vince, but he didn't make him an on paper Billionaire for a time like Rock and Austin did. Plus Austin has records for merchandise sold which out-paced Hogan in his heyday. So for my money, and actually Vince's money as well the Attitude era under Rock and Austin was a more lucrative period. I dont know if there is any other way to prove which era was more 'popular'.

12-30-2003, 12:48 AM	#4
thebitch thebitch is back Posts: 174	imo, attitude, because I watched it more, to be completely honest. But, as Cynick said, it would be so difficult to actually compare the two eras, simply because things have changed. PPV's are more frequent, more people have access to them. The TV shows are on different networks, and on at different times. Not to mention, the value of a dollar has gone way down. But, Attitude was better I think.

12-30-2003, 12:51 AM	#5
Draven Never Let It Go Posts: 2,767	Attitude

12-30-2003, 12:06 PM	#8
Hardkore Kidd J Time to Nut Up or Shut up Posts: 2,803	Attitude

12-31-2003, 11:21 AM	#9
sexymanalive Guest Posts: n/a	attitude because Hogen suck back then and he suck now

12-31-2003, 12:38 PM	#10
Disturbed316 Posts: 22,695	Hogan era Just about every kid in our school loved watching it.

12-31-2003, 04:18 PM	#11
JeRz Posts: 4,035	Don't really know....the Attitude era was great in my opinon

12-31-2003, 04:22 PM	#12
Disturbed316 Posts: 22,695	Dont get me wrong, I loved the whole Attitude era, but wrestling wasn't as popular as it was during the Hogan era.

12-31-2003, 04:23 PM	#13
Fryza Fthagn? Posts: 10,042	Attitude, due to the fact it got more news coverage due to the stunts it pulled, for better or worse.

12-31-2003, 04:30 PM	#14
Sephiroth Your All Puppets Posts: 7,585	Attitude

12-31-2003, 05:12 PM	#15
Head Shocker Posts: 3,124	I'm sure there were probably more total people watching the shows during the Attitude era, but amoung kids (elementry school age), I'm sure it was a lot more popular during Hogan's days. Like Distrubed, pretty much everbody in my elementry school watched wrestling back in the day.

12-31-2003, 08:04 PM	#17
Head Shocker Posts: 3,124	Yeah, guys like Val Venis, Goldust, and the Godfather, while they wern't main eventers had a lot to do with creating the WWE's image at the time. In the 80s, it was all about Hogan destroying the evil Russian/Iranian/evil foreigner.