When Michaels retires...

**Jeritron** · 02-25-2009, 04:13 PM

Noid, you're looking at things in black and white. You need to look at them relative to their circumstances.

Goldberg drew more money than Michaels...sure, if you're simply counting company business while they were champion. But the bottom line is Goldberg was put over by Hogan and had the belt put on him during the company's boom period.
This is like claiming that anyone who was champion during a time of higher ratings was neccesarilly a bigger draw than anyone who was champion in a lower rated time period.
In the modern era, people watch the programming, attend the live events, and order the ppvs based off the whole product. Who's champion doesn't neccesarily mean everything.

If you take a PPV with a large buyrate, do you credit the title match, or do you look at the whole picture? Think about Armageddon 99. Did Big Show vs Bossman draw the house? Ratings were high at the time, and live attendance was through the roof. Was Big Show a huge draw? Was Bossman a draw?
No, HHH and The Rock were, as well as Vince and Mankind. They just happened to be in non-title matches.

Guys like Michaels, Diesel and Hart might not have drawn the same money, but that doesn't mean they weren't equally as impressive draws. I've stated before that although business might have been down when Michaels was champion he was the WHOLE SHOW. Bret had time off, Austin hadn't emerged yet, and the Outsiders just left for Atlanta. Other than Taker, he was carrying the company on his back.

The company had been struggling ever since Hogan and Savage blew out the door. It was a downtime for the company. It wasn't the fault of the champions. It was the result of a lean roster. It was a dip in business overall, not a case of low drawing champions.

Bret and Michaels were never properly put over by the top guys before them, and the "New Generation" was a struggle that went much deeper than you're giving it credit for.

02-25-2009, 04:13 PM	#10
Jeritron Get a poke on Posts: 35,234	Noid, you're looking at things in black and white. You need to look at them relative to their circumstances. Goldberg drew more money than Michaels...sure, if you're simply counting company business while they were champion. But the bottom line is Goldberg was put over by Hogan and had the belt put on him during the company's boom period. This is like claiming that anyone who was champion during a time of higher ratings was neccesarilly a bigger draw than anyone who was champion in a lower rated time period. In the modern era, people watch the programming, attend the live events, and order the ppvs based off the whole product. Who's champion doesn't neccesarily mean everything. If you take a PPV with a large buyrate, do you credit the title match, or do you look at the whole picture? Think about Armageddon 99. Did Big Show vs Bossman draw the house? Ratings were high at the time, and live attendance was through the roof. Was Big Show a huge draw? Was Bossman a draw? No, HHH and The Rock were, as well as Vince and Mankind. They just happened to be in non-title matches. Guys like Michaels, Diesel and Hart might not have drawn the same money, but that doesn't mean they weren't equally as impressive draws. I've stated before that although business might have been down when Michaels was champion he was the WHOLE SHOW. Bret had time off, Austin hadn't emerged yet, and the Outsiders just left for Atlanta. Other than Taker, he was carrying the company on his back. The company had been struggling ever since Hogan and Savage blew out the door. It was a downtime for the company. It wasn't the fault of the champions. It was the result of a lean roster. It was a dip in business overall, not a case of low drawing champions. Bret and Michaels were never properly put over by the top guys before them, and the "New Generation" was a struggle that went much deeper than you're giving it credit for. Last edited by Jeritron; 02-25-2009 at 04:17 PM.