The Rock the biggest draw of 1999

[Smart Marx]

I don't know what you think that quote about the Rock in a magazine proves, but it doesn't provide any numbers that would make me disbelieve WWE. WWE would have zero reason to lie about Austin selling more shirts than Rock and considering reputable sources like Forbes back all that up with the report that half of WWE's $500 million merch profit in 1999 was due to Austin shirts and whatnot, I'm gonna go with that for now.

Even WON and Torch reported Austin breaking merch records in 1999 in 1999 when it was happening.

 

[Grimoire Lenin]

The biggest draw of the 60's was Bruno Sammartino, the biggest draw of the 70's was Andre the Giant, the biggest draw of the 80's was obviously Hogan, and the biggest draw of the 90's was Austin. 2000's and 2010's definitely is where the water is muddied.

That's about all I really got to say.

 

[Smart Marx]

The biggest draw of the 60's was Bruno Sammartino, the biggest draw of the 70's was Andre the Giant, the biggest draw of the 80's was obviously Hogan, and the biggest draw of the 90's was Austin. 2000's and 2010's definitely is where the water is muddied.

That's about all I really got to say.

2000s you can probably split with Cena and Batista due to the brand split, but yeah no one in 2010s. WWE was the draw after that.

 

[Grimoire Lenin]

2000s you can probably split with Cena and Batista due to the brand split, but yeah no one in 2010s. WWE was the draw after that.

I dunno about that between those two. Part of me wants to say Brock Lesnar because even outside of wrestling he was fucking huge.

 

[RLStern]

I don't know what you think that quote about the Rock in a magazine proves

Shows Rock drew more merchandise than Austin as merchandise is a percentage of the pay.

Again, I know this bothers many Austin fans but it must be reiterated, these numbers cannot be changed and they are not going away:


Rock drew the most merchandise, in Austin's best year he made $6,000,000, while The Rock made $15,000,000 Yearly/Multiple Years. Rock earned more than double than Austin's Best 1 Year. Meaning he drew lower every other year.

Austin sold $13,000,000 in merchandise, a percentage of that is given to him, where his earnings were $6,000,000 in his best year. Going by that percentage, by Rock's Yearly $15,000,000 salary, Rock sold Approximately(Underestimating here, should be more) $23,000,000+ Yearly in merchandise with Competition(Austin's best selling year didn't have heavy competition in merchandise, whereas with Rock, by 1999 almost everyone had merchandise.)

$23,000,000+ Yearly Merchandise sold with Competition > $13,000,000 Best Year Merchandise sold with almost no competition & multiple shirts throughout the year.

$15,000,000 Yearly Earnings > $6,000,000 Best Year Earning.

Rock was a bigger draw in merchandise than Austin. There is literally nothing you can do to make these numbers go away, no amount of gymnastics or he said she said’s change the numbers.

The revisionist history of Austin being a bigger draw is refuted, The Rock was the bigger draw than Austin from late 1998-2002, Period at the gate, merchandise ratings, PPV, media appearances etc

 

[NotBrutus]

Why is nobody mentioning Triple H? This was the year that he finally got the brass ring, the WWE wouldn’t give a title to a guy who was drawing less than their two stars. Mans saying The Rock who was facing washed up British Bulldog in pay per views

 

[RLStern]

Also forgot to mention, Austin drew the lowest drawing PPV of 1998, 1999, 2000, respectively.

1998 - No Way Out 1998 Tag match invo

1999 - No Mercy 1999 Triple H vs Stone Cold

2000 - Survivor Series 2000 Triple H vs Stone Cold(Most simply didn’t care for this story)

Whereas Rock drew the biggest Survivor Series ever in 1998.

Then drew the biggest PPV’s of each year 1999-2002.

 

[Smart Marx]

Shows Rock drew more merchandise than Austin as merchandise is a percentage of the pay.

Again, I know this bothers many Austin fans but it must be reiterated, these numbers cannot be changed and they are not going away:


Rock drew the most merchandise, in Austin's best year he made $6,000,000, while The Rock made $15,000,000 Yearly/Multiple Years. Rock earned more than double than Austin's Best 1 Year. Meaning he drew lower every other year.

Austin sold $13,000,000 in merchandise, a percentage of that is given to him, where his earnings were $6,000,000 in his best year. Going by that percentage, by Rock's Yearly $15,000,000 salary, Rock sold Approximately(Underestimating here, should be more) $23,000,000+ Yearly in merchandise with Competition(Austin's best selling year didn't have heavy competition in merchandise, whereas with Rock, by 1999 almost everyone had merchandise.)

$23,000,000+ Yearly Merchandise sold with Competition > $13,000,000 Best Year Merchandise sold with almost no competition & multiple shirts throughout the year.

$15,000,000 Yearly Earnings > $6,000,000 Best Year Earning.

Rock was a bigger draw in merchandise than Austin. There is literally nothing you can do to make these numbers go away, no amount of gymnastics or he said she said’s change the numbers.

The revisionist history of Austin being a bigger draw is refuted, The Rock was the bigger draw than Austin from late 1998-2002, Period at the gate, merchandise ratings, PPV, media appearances etc

None of this means anything. You're taking a quote from a non-reputable source that says "reportedly earns" which is his total pay supposedly not his merch sales and then doing mental gymnastics to say what he and somehow Austin made in merch. You've refuted nothing with this. Find me actual numbers of what he and Austin made because WWE says you're wrong. Forbes says you're wrong. WON and Torch say you're wrong.

I'm fairly certainly I can find what he actually made in 1999 and it's closer to $10m. Austin made WWE $250 million in merch. Which is a fact.

 

[RLStern]

You've refuted nothing with this

I have, multiple times and you have yet to provide legit numbers, only claims, and revisionist history.

WWF never drew more revenue in the Attitude era than when Rock was on top in 2000, and that includes merchandise sales to where no one made more money than Rock in merchandise.

No matter how hard you try, those WWFShopzone web archives from 99-02 ain’t going nowhere.

https://web.archive.org/web/19990422131428/http://www.wwfshopzone.com/

No matter how hard you try these facts are concrete, from the time period reporting factual numbers.

Rock drew the most merchandise, in Austin's best year he made $6,000,000, while The Rock made $15,000,000 Yearly/Multiple Years. Rock earned more than double than Austin's Best 1 Year. Meaning he drew lower every other year.

Austin sold $13,000,000 in merchandise, a percentage of that is given to him, where his earnings were $6,000,000 in his best year. Going by that percentage, by Rock's Yearly $15,000,000salary, Rock sold Approximately(Underestimating here, should be more) $23,000,000+ Yearly in merchandise with Competition(Austin's best selling year didn't have heavy competition in merchandise, whereas with Rock, by 1999 almost everyone had merchandise.)

$23,000,000+ Yearly Merchandise sold with Competition > $13,000,000 Best Year Merchandise sold with almost no competition & multiple shirts throughout the year.

$15,000,000 Yearly Earnings > $6,000,000 Best Year Earning.

Rock was a bigger draw than Austin during the Attitude era and there is no changing that no matter how much you may dislike the fact.

 

[Smart Marx]

WWF never drew more revenue in the Attitude era than when Rock was on top in 2000, and that includes merchandise sales to where no one made more money than Rock in merchandise.

First thing, we were talking about 1999. Of course Rock sold the most in 2000. Austin was on the shelf most of the year.

 

[Smart Marx]

I have, multiple times and you have yet to provide legit numbers, only claims, and revisionist history.

You've not provided a single legit number. A quote from Ebony Magazine isn't reputable.

 

[Smart Marx]

No matter how hard you try, those WWFShopzone web archives from 99-02 ain’t going nowhere.

https://web.archive.org/web/19990422131428/http://www.wwfshopzone.com/

No matter how hard you try these facts are concrete, from the time period reporting factual numbers.

Enlightenment to what I'm supposed to be seeing on these old broken web pages? I don't see how merch sales numbers here.

 

[Smart Marx]

Austin sold $13,000,000 in merchandise, a percentage of that is given to him, where his earnings were $6,000,000 in his best year. Going by that percentage, by Rock's Yearly $15,000,000salary, Rock sold Approximately(Underestimating here, should be more) $23,000,000+ Yearly in merchandise with Competition(Austin's best selling year didn't have heavy competition in merchandise, whereas with Rock, by 1999 almost everyone had merchandise.)

$23,000,000+ Yearly Merchandise sold with Competition > $13,000,000 Best Year Merchandise sold with almost no competition & multiple shirts throughout the year.

$15,000,000 Yearly Earnings > $6,000,000 Best Year Earning.

Rock was a bigger draw than Austin during the Attitude era and there is no changing that no matter how much you may dislike the fact.

Show me where you've pulled these numbers from because you give zero sources for these.

I can give you WWE, Forbes and all the Dirt Sheets that reported on merch in 1999 that say Austin sold half of all merch sold that year.

 

[RLStern]

You've not provided a single legit number. A quote from Ebony Magazine isn't reputable.

Enlightenment to what I'm supposed to be seeing on these old broken web pages? I don't see how merch sales numbers here.

It is concrete, it’s from the time period from an unbiased source outside the bubble and actual lists of what was selling, Rock continuously outsold Austin and was higher in sales lists.

https://web.archive.org/web/19990422131428/http://www.wwfshopzone.com/

WWF Shopzone

WWF Shopzone Homepage

web.archive.org

Rock drew the most merchandise, in Austin's best year he made $6,000,000, while The Rock made $15,000,000 Yearly/Multiple Years. Rock earned more than double than Austin's Best 1 Year. Meaning he drew lower every other year.

Austin sold $13,000,000 in merchandise, a percentage of that is given to him, where his earnings were $6,000,000 in his best year. Going by that percentage, by Rock's Yearly $15,000,000salary, Rock sold Approximately(Underestimating here, should be more) $23,000,000+ Yearly in merchandise with Competition(Austin's best selling year didn't have heavy competition in merchandise, whereas with Rock, by 1999 almost everyone had merchandise.)

$23,000,000+ Yearly Merchandise sold with Competition > $13,000,000 Best Year Merchandise sold with almost no competition & multiple shirts throughout the year.

$15,000,000 Yearly Earnings > $6,000,000 Best Year Earning.


Objective unbiased report, It refutes your argument completely, you may not like that but it doesn’t cease being reputable because you dislike the fact that it refuted you.

 

[Smart Marx]

It is concrete, it’s from the time period from an unbiased source outside the bubble and actual lists of what was selling, Rock continuously outsold Austin and was higher in sales lists.

Ebony isn't credible no matter how many gifs you post. And it doesn't state what either Rock or Austin sold in merch.

You're being intentionally obtuse at this point (and by that I mean intentionally as a tactic so I'm not calling you slow).