Ratings and Buyrates aren't opinions

[Cena's Jeans Shorts]

Everything a wrestler does from the moment he comes through the curtain and when he finally walks to the back again is all meant to work a crowd. These guys work hard on their craft learning how to get the response from the crowd they want. We can debate til the end of time whether heel / face is an appropriate term anymore. But the fact is, there is one guy that goes out there whose job it is to help make the crowd want to cheer the other guy and get behind him emotionally. The story the tell in the ring, the promos the cut, the way the walk to the ring, all that is part of the work.

Everyone over the age of three knows this shit is a work. One of the charms of rasslin' is when these guys are so good at what they do, they make you forget altl hat and you boo for someone based on the work he's doing, you get lost in the story being told out there.

I don't find anything dumb about it at all. They're letting go of knowledge everyone in the world possesses, that this is all work, and choose to enjoy the story and get lost in the moment. Cheering and booing in a wrestling arena is the same damn thing. Sitting there quiet is the mark of not giving a shit, that's when there's trouble.

Buy rates, ratings, merchandising sales, that's more a deal for the suits that lay out who gets featured on TV, what angles to push. From our point of view, it explains why one guy is probably not getting featured so much if fans are indifferent to him, or why some is oddly being pushed to the moon, despite being green.

Additionally, the whole trend of deciding you will turn on anyone that's pushed hard and popular with the masses is just another form of conformity. You're still buying into mass appeal as reality and simply reacting to that rather than anything of substance.

 

[Cena's Jeans Shorts]

It actually deserved them. If you compare that to the This Is Your Life segment in 1999 that got Raw it's highest ratings you don't get the same thing. It was just a random segment that got a high rating because of how popular WWE was at the time. It's pretty pathetic.

Popular doesn't always mean good. I think that's a pretty fair statement. Quite often though, these are all very subjective things. And it's being applied to rasslin' here and not literature. While there's a craft to rasslin', it's a form of entertainment that's highly superficial and where it's made to be very accessible to almost any age. With rasslin', you like who you like. You can appreciate the athleticism of one guy, or maybe another can deliver an entertaining speech. maybe one guy looks like shit, isn't athletic, but can use every thing he does to make you hate his guts on a very instinctive level. Maybe some guys are liked largely for their look. I don't think there's really such a thing as a right answer as for why someone should like a particular rassler.

 

[Keith]

Popular doesn't always mean good. I think that's a pretty fair statement. Quite often though, these are all very subjective things. And it's being applied to rasslin' here and not literature. While there's a craft to rasslin', it's a form of entertainment that's highly superficial and where it's made to be very accessible to almost any age. With rasslin', you like who you like. You can appreciate the athleticism of one guy, or maybe another can deliver an entertaining speech. maybe one guy looks like shit, isn't athletic, but can use every thing he does to make you hate his guts on a very instinctive level. Maybe some guys are liked largely for their look. I don't think there's really such a thing as a right answer as for why someone should like a particular rassler.

I think TXATCS (hope you like that!) is right through, its possible that that was the most rated segment because of Mankind/Rock being in it, but more likely it is just to do with how popluar WWF was then and that just happens to be the most watched segment ever. That is why when people try to say Bryan Daniels kills ratings by pointing out weak ratings during a match of his, are neive and why ratings or at least single rating points are not the best way to judge a performer. Another issue is that todays wrestling fans just don't imo watch a show from start to finish like they used to and thats for a number of reasons.

 

[Deezy]

I think TXATCS (hope you like that!) is right through, its possible that that was the most rated segment because of Mankind/Rock being in it, but more likely it is just to do with how popluar WWF was then and that just happens to be the most watched segment ever. That is why when people try to say Bryan Daniels kills ratings by pointing out weak ratings during a match of his, are neive and why ratings or at least single rating points are not the best way to judge a performer. Another issue is that todays wrestling fans just don't imo watch a show from start to finish like they used to and thats for a number of reasons.

What a crock of shit.

You used to judge the value of a wrestler on the way he put asses in the seats, now ratings are all we have on judging the value of a performer nowadays.

Rock and Mankind segment outgrew the normal ratings of mere wrestlings fans, this was a special segment that got peoples attentions and got others who don't normally watch wrestling to tune in. Simple facts are simple facts.

Truth of the matters are simply, the casual audience would rather watch two guys in the ring if they both have microphones. Ratings always reflect that.

 

[Keith]

What a crock of shit.

You used to judge the value of a wrestler on the way he put asses in the seats, now ratings are all we have on judging the value of a performer nowadays.

Rock and Mankind segment outgrew the normal ratings of mere wrestlings fans, this was a special segment that got peoples attentions and got others who don't normally watch wrestling to tune in. Simple facts are simple facts.

Truth of the matters are simply, the casual audience would rather watch two guys in the ring if they both have microphones. Ratings always reflect that.

Before you go storming in maybe you should read peoples posts, what I was saying is that single rateing points don't tell the full story. Its like someone once claimed that Velvet Sky was the most highly rated Knockout on TNA based on ratings, not if you think that has anything to do with fans liking her over the likes of Gail Kim or Mickie James than you are sorely wrong. Long term ratings over many weeks and months, as well ppv buys and the like are you judge talent.

 

[Deezy]

Before you go storming in maybe you should read peoples posts, what I was saying is that single rateing points don't tell the full story. Its like someone once claimed that Velvet Sky was the most highly rated Knockout on TNA based on ratings, not if you think that has anything to do with fans liking her over the likes of Gail Kim or Mickie James than you are sorely wrong. Long term ratings over many weeks and months, as well ppv buys and the like are you judge talent.

I did read your post when I stormed in, outside of abunch of spelling errors, I got the gist of it and I still think you are just nitpicking here.

Now you say others have to be involved in the fact that there are ratings draws and ratings losers. We continue to base a Daniel Bryan on ratings weekly and he hasn't drawn ratings outside of hugging Kane.

The ratings thread is there, I suggest you read it.

 

[FalconPunch]

Calm down ladies, Jeez.

 

[Keith]

Calm down ladies, Jeez.

That would have been funny if you weren't nearly two months late.

 

[FalconPunch]

That would have been funny if you weren't nearly two months late.

 

[We Are Legion]

Responding with GIF's. He's a lot later than 2 months.

 

[FalconPunch]

Responding with GIF's. He's a lot later than 2 months.

 

[We Are Legion]

Worst member.

 

[John McHenry]

Well this has run its course it seems.