Were attendance rates really that low for WCW by the end?

**Rollermacka** · 11-11-2009, 03:04 PM

I was looking at some WCW Starrcade matches and on Wikipedia.org it says that the last Starrcade in 2000 had an attendance of less than 7000 people. I looked at Bash at the Beach and the Great American Bash, both of them also had about the same ammount (about 7000). I remember that WCW was in bad shape at that time, but did they really have less people showing up for there biggest pay per views of the year than on an average night of RAW?

**The Mackem** · 11-11-2009, 03:17 PM

You've got to remember that 2000 was a very surreal year for WCW. David Arquette had been champion, WCW as a whole was rebooted, they drooped the New Blood/Millionaire's club when it didn't produce the results that they initially wanted, Russo booking plus if you look at the Starrcade card for that year it doesn't fill you with much excitement. Steiner/Sid for the title.

Some of their last Nitros seemed very low. Sin, Superbrawl Revenge and Greed looked bad numbers wise as well. They really cut back in production and I've also read previously that by the end they were only touring the South. WWF in comparison were getting at least double what WCW were in attendance IIRC. The funny thing was it seemed like they'd hit the worst and were about to come out the other side.

**USAUSA1** · 11-11-2009, 04:26 PM

For the record, Starrcade traditionally drew low numbers. From the 90's-2000 only two starrcades drew over 10,000 people. 97 and 98. In matter of fact,only 7 starrcades in history drew over 10,000 people, 83,84,85,86,88,97,98. Every other Starrcade did between 8-9000 people. Halloween Havoc was the flagship show in the 90's and I think Bischoff even stated this in interviews. Halloween Havoc from 94-98 drew over 10,000 people. Halloween Havoc 2000 drew better than Starrcade 2000. (Sorta reminds me of TNA Lockdown vs. Bound For Glory, BFG is suppose to be the flagship but Lockdown always draw better and Slammiversary always does better than BFG as well)

In the 90's, Nitro usually drew bigger numbers than ppvs when it came to attendance. And rightfully so, More happen on Nitro than ppvs. It was great for fans.

Basically, the worst booking of all time led to those low numbers. Even Hogan and Goldberg couldn't save it at that point. Russo sucks

**Loose Cannon** · 11-11-2009, 04:34 PM

anyone know how the WWE in 94/95 compared to WCW in 2000 in terms of numbers? Who was in worse shape in both companies respected "low periods?"

**USAUSA1** · 11-11-2009, 04:46 PM

Well, WWE buyrates and attendance were always better especially around that time. I think WCW was actually improving business wise around that time though while it was a drop for WWE.

**Steveviscious89** · 11-11-2009, 10:01 PM

Yeah that is probably accurate. One thing that the WWF/E was always able to do, even when they were losing the ratings war, was put butts in the seats. That was a very bad time for WCW. You can blame Vince Russo, but upper management wasn't exactly doing it's job. Watch the Rise and Fall of WCW DVD, it explains a lot of why they crashed and burned; lack of good and consistent management. It was actually a problem that had plagued WCW even going back into the 80's. With all the talk of Hogan possibly screwing up TNA, I would say at the very least they have absolute direction with Dixie Carter.

**USAUSA1** · 11-12-2009, 12:16 AM

Let's not forget when WCW had direction, it was successful. Bischoff don't get enough credit for turning crap into gold. Telling him to go home was a stupid decision.

11-11-2009, 03:04 PM	#1
Rollermacka Gets Hardcore in the gym Posts: 4,565	Were attendance rates really that low for WCW by the end? I was looking at some WCW Starrcade matches and on Wikipedia.org it says that the last Starrcade in 2000 had an attendance of less than 7000 people. I looked at Bash at the Beach and the Great American Bash, both of them also had about the same ammount (about 7000). I remember that WCW was in bad shape at that time, but did they really have less people showing up for there biggest pay per views of the year than on an average night of RAW?

11-11-2009, 03:17 PM	#2
The Mackem VG + Q&A FORUM REPRESENT Posts: 38,940	You've got to remember that 2000 was a very surreal year for WCW. David Arquette had been champion, WCW as a whole was rebooted, they drooped the New Blood/Millionaire's club when it didn't produce the results that they initially wanted, Russo booking plus if you look at the Starrcade card for that year it doesn't fill you with much excitement. Steiner/Sid for the title. Some of their last Nitros seemed very low. Sin, Superbrawl Revenge and Greed looked bad numbers wise as well. They really cut back in production and I've also read previously that by the end they were only touring the South. WWF in comparison were getting at least double what WCW were in attendance IIRC. The funny thing was it seemed like they'd hit the worst and were about to come out the other side.

11-11-2009, 04:26 PM	#3
USAUSA1 Junior Member Posts: 70	For the record, Starrcade traditionally drew low numbers. From the 90's-2000 only two starrcades drew over 10,000 people. 97 and 98. In matter of fact,only 7 starrcades in history drew over 10,000 people, 83,84,85,86,88,97,98. Every other Starrcade did between 8-9000 people. Halloween Havoc was the flagship show in the 90's and I think Bischoff even stated this in interviews. Halloween Havoc from 94-98 drew over 10,000 people. Halloween Havoc 2000 drew better than Starrcade 2000. (Sorta reminds me of TNA Lockdown vs. Bound For Glory, BFG is suppose to be the flagship but Lockdown always draw better and Slammiversary always does better than BFG as well) In the 90's, Nitro usually drew bigger numbers than ppvs when it came to attendance. And rightfully so, More happen on Nitro than ppvs. It was great for fans. Basically, the worst booking of all time led to those low numbers. Even Hogan and Goldberg couldn't save it at that point. Russo sucks

11-11-2009, 04:34 PM	#4
Loose Cannon I'm all there is Posts: 31,811	anyone know how the WWE in 94/95 compared to WCW in 2000 in terms of numbers? Who was in worse shape in both companies respected "low periods?"

11-11-2009, 04:46 PM	#5
USAUSA1 Junior Member Posts: 70	Well, WWE buyrates and attendance were always better especially around that time. I think WCW was actually improving business wise around that time though while it was a drop for WWE.

11-11-2009, 10:01 PM	#6
Steveviscious89 We Want Sting! Posts: 358	Yeah that is probably accurate. One thing that the WWF/E was always able to do, even when they were losing the ratings war, was put butts in the seats. That was a very bad time for WCW. You can blame Vince Russo, but upper management wasn't exactly doing it's job. Watch the Rise and Fall of WCW DVD, it explains a lot of why they crashed and burned; lack of good and consistent management. It was actually a problem that had plagued WCW even going back into the 80's. With all the talk of Hogan possibly screwing up TNA, I would say at the very least they have absolute direction with Dixie Carter.

11-12-2009, 12:16 AM	#7
USAUSA1 Junior Member Posts: 70	Let's not forget when WCW had direction, it was successful. Bischoff don't get enough credit for turning crap into gold. Telling him to go home was a stupid decision.