Color me shocked.
-
Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!
I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register
Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board
The Rock the biggest draw of 1999
- Thread starter RLStern
- Start date
- Status
Color me shocked.
You don't need to keep reposting this. It means nothing unless you can answer the question of where is your reputable source?
Again, you repost something I've already seen instead of answer my question about what this link is supposedly showing me.
I don't see a single merch sale report anywhere on this broken page.
No, it’s reputable, Ebony magazine directly interviews Rock and any WWF constituents, they have zero reason to be bias and it’s from the time period.
Unlike your claims, where you claim he made a number beyond the reported revenue of that year.
There’s absolutely zero credibility in your argument, the source stands as credible unless refuted otherwise.
It's called WWE's own financials and Forbes, a reputable business report, confirming it, and literally every dirt sheet reporting wrestling at the time.
Thus far not one person has presented one shred of numbers, Rock was bigger than Austin.
No amount of crying, jokes, debate gymnastics changes the objective numbers. Disappointing really, thought there would at least be some form of credible debate.
You're the one claiming WWE would some reason lie about who sold more merchandise for zero reason. The burden of proof is on you.
Interviewing the Rock about his total base pay isn't reputable proof of how merch merch he sold.
WWE and Forbes say they're lying and they're more credible. So I think we're done here since that seems to be your only proof.
I don't care what happened in 1999 overall Austin outsold Rock by a far margin in merch sales through his career, and was a bigger draw according to Vince McMahon.
"
Who was the bigger draw Rock or Austin?
Austin has been confirmed by Vince to be the single biggest draw in the history of professional wrestling. Austin sold more merchandise than Rock (than anyone). He can be attributed to more of a direct viewership turnaround/growth than Rock. He drew more people to the house and WWF did more shows when Austin was there."
"
Who was the bigger draw Rock or Austin?
Austin has been confirmed by Vince to be the single biggest draw in the history of professional wrestling. Austin sold more merchandise than Rock (than anyone). He can be attributed to more of a direct viewership turnaround/growth than Rock. He drew more people to the house and WWF did more shows when Austin was there."
It is reputable, you not liking it doesn’t change that. That’s first hand credible source whether you like it or not., unlike Meltzer or Keller. Whereas you claim Austin drew more than half the revenue for merch despite being below Rock in 1999 on archieves best sellers list from the actual website.
You posts has zero credibility.
Bottom line is that the ebony article and WWFShopzone archives are a credible source, documented, unbiased and from the time period.
No amount of crying, screaming, or yelling that its not credible disproves it, that’s simply not how it’s works.
Come back with facts and figures, no “but but but tHaTs nOt cReDibLE!!” does not and will not cut it here.
Until you bring any shred of proof against the concrete numbers provided:
Revisionist Claims with zero numbers and facts.
Dismissed and to the garbage your goes. I expect effort next time.
Here’s actual numbers and figures:
1999 The Rock is named the biggest box office star of 1999, breaking Austin’s record in 1998. In 2000 the Rock would then break his own record from 1999.
1999 The Rock is named the biggest box office star of 1999, breaking Austin’s record in 1998. In 2000 the Rock would then break his own record from 1999.
The Rock was drawing the biggest PPV’s whenever he main evented that year(First 3, KOTR) while breaking the record and drawing the biggest wrestling ppv of all time at the time with Wrestlemania 15, he would then break this record with Wrestlemania 2000.
Rock outdraws Austin on August 24, 1998 Raw during road to Summerslam 1998:
The Rock drew the biggest ratings the entire year, start to finish, outdrawing Stone Cold since the end of 1998:
Rock out pops Austin even as WWF champion May 3rd 1999:
Compilation of Rock’s media coverage:
-7:50 “he’s the hottest thing in the world wrestling federation”
Appearances on:
The View - 2:59
That 70’s show - 1:13
Much music - 25:56
Promoting Georgia dome debut(Where they booed Austin)- 11:13
People magazine names Rock one of the sexist men of 1999 - 22:30
On TSN’s Off The Record with Michael Landsberg, February 1999
4:50 - “In 1996 if anyone could’ve told you that you would become one of the most personalities in North America and around the world that wouldn’t have surprised you?”
15:40 - “You took that guys place, Stone Cold”
Crowds cheers Rock over Austin on road to Wrestlemania 15 despite being a heel: https://wrestlingsmarks.com/threads...ld-during-the-road-to-wrestlemania-15.118706/
Rock drew the highest rated cable segment in professional wrestling history on the September 27, 1999 Raw Is War with an 8.4:
1999 was Austin’s peak year of his own career, despite that The Rock was a bigger draw and more popular than Austin
Unless you can prove this source to Not be reputable, and refute it with actual numbers and concrete figures, you have zero credibility:
If you claim what they reported as false and not credible, you need to prove it, otherwise too fucking bad.
No amount of crying, trolling, whining or screaming “iT’s NoT cREdiBlE!!!!!” changes that.
If you claim what they reported as false and not credible, you need to prove it, otherwise too fucking bad.
No amount of crying, trolling, whining or screaming “iT’s NoT cREdiBlE!!!!!” changes that.
The burden of proof is on you. You have to prove how this is more credible than WWE and Forbes. Spoiler, it's not.Unless you can prove this source to Not be reputable, and refute it with actual numbers and concrete figures, you have zero credibility:
If you claim what they reported as false and not credible, you need to prove it, otherwise too fucking bad.
No amount of crying, trolling, whining or screaming “iT’s NoT cREdiBlE!!!!!” changes that.
Exactly, while I’m posting sourced material from Ebony magazine, from a first hand interview, we got folks crying, “iT’s NOt CrEDIblE!!!” With no proof.
I don’t have tolerance for stupidity or willing denial to the facts I provided.
I don't think he understand how burden of proof works.
- Status