WWE RAW to go to 3 hours every week, TNA iMPACT to go live.

[big dog cowboy]

When's WCW Monday Nitro coming back?

www.youtube.com

 

[Cowboy Brian]

On the Brock vs Rock who is the bigger draw argument.. Extreme Rules went up 17% in buys year over year, Wrestlemania 28 final numbers are around 1.25m.. WM27 1,120,000 buys around a 9% increase. Even if you were to compare the 27 buyrate to the early numbers WWE released that they have now stated were high of 1.3m that is around a 14% increase.

Brock > Rock.

 

[zrinkill]

Brock > Rock.

 

[BoysFan4ever]

I really don't see how anyone could think Lesnar is greater than Rock! To me it's not even close.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Brock > Rock.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

On the Brock vs Rock who is the bigger draw argument.. Extreme Rules went up 17% in buys year over year, Wrestlemania 28 final numbers are around 1.25m.. WM27 1,120,000 buys around a 9% increase. Even if you were to compare the 27 buyrate to the early numbers WWE released that they have now stated were high of 1.3m that is around a 14% increase.

Brock > Rock.

Wow....you're so....It's not even worth it.

You're so ignorant when it comes to wrestling that I'm amazed that it continues to surprise me.

 

[Cowboy Brian]

Wow....you're so....It's not even worth it.

You're so ignorant when it comes to wrestling that I'm amazed that it continues to surprise me.

I guess numbers lie? The biggest PPV draw in the past decade vs a movie star. Its not some crazy notion to believe the biggest PPV draw of the past decade will be the bigger PPV draw.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I guess numbers lie? The biggest PPV draw in the past decade vs a movie star. Its not some crazy notion to believe the biggest PPV draw of the past decade will be the bigger PPV draw.

Ugh...you're choosing improved numbers of a BS PPV from last year to a BS PPV this year. No one cares about extreme rules. It's a junk PPV. Always has been.

And you're trying to compare that to the guy they bring in to increase numbers for WM?

There's a HUGE difference between increasing numbers for WM and increasing them for a second rate, throw together PPV, like Extreme Rules.


Not surprisingly you don't get that and don't understand that.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Not surprisingly you don't get that and don't understand that.

I still can't wrap my head around the fact someone tried to compare Brock and The Rock and who is the bigger draw.

 

[zrinkill]

I still can't wrap my head around the fact someone tried to compare Brock and The Rock and who is the bigger draw.

How can any of you be surprised by anything he says at this point?

Just point and laugh.

 

[Cowboy Brian]

Ugh...you're choosing improved numbers of a BS PPV from last year to a BS PPV this year. No one cares about extreme rules. It's a junk PPV. Always has been.

And you're trying to compare that to the guy they bring in to increase numbers for WM?

There's a HUGE difference between increasing numbers for WM and increasing them for a second rate, throw together PPV, like Extreme Rules.


Not surprisingly you don't get that and don't understand that.

Well your absolutely right. There is a huge difference between popping a buyrate for a unimportant throwaway ppv vs the biggest show of the year. It's far more impressive.

Now lets take this fantasy world you are in. Survivor Series 2011, 14% increase year over year - The Rocks in ring return.

So I guess it is fair to assume that with the best case numbers The Rock is worth 14%. Brock with a 3 week buildup on a PPV with much worse standing than Suvivor Series was worth 17%. Sorry, Brock is a far larger draw than The Rock could hope to be. You are not arguing speculation, you are arguing something that has now been proven 3 times - Rocks 3 majorly hyped up returns on major PPVs are all below Brocks return with a 3 week buildup.

How can one even argue this? It's comical. :laugh1:. I guess the only argument you could make is that WWE is lying... Which would be a ridiculous argument to make.

 

[Biggems]

Well your absolutely right. There is a huge difference between popping a buyrate for a unimportant throwaway ppv vs the biggest show of the year. It's far more impressive.

Now lets take this fantasy world you are in. Survivor Series 2011, 14% increase year over year - The Rocks in ring return.

So I guess it is fair to assume that with the best case numbers The Rock is worth 14%. Brock with a 3 week buildup on a PPV with much worse standing than Suvivor Series was worth 17%. Sorry, Brock is a far larger draw than The Rock could hope to be. You are not arguing speculation, you are arguing something that has now been proven 3 times - Rocks 3 majorly hyped up returns on major PPVs are all below Brocks return with a 3 week buildup.

How can one even argue this? It's comical. :laugh1:. I guess the only argument you could make is that WWE is lying... Which would be a ridiculous argument to make.

Listen closely Scarecrow, the Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summer Slam, and Survivor Series are the big 4. They are basically the Grand Slams of the WWE PPV lineup. So if you can get a 9% and 14% buyrate increase on PPVs that are already selling huge numbers, that is quite impressive. The other PPVs are basically "Whatever" PPVs. Yes, Brock helped increase the buyrate by 17%....and that is impressive, but not even on the same level as the Rock......

Now runalong and find the Tin Man and Lion.....ok Scarecrow.....

 

[Cowboy Brian]

Listen closely Scarecrow, the Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summer Slam, and Survivor Series are the big 4. They are basically the Grand Slams of the WWE PPV lineup. So if you can get a 9% and 14% buyrate increase on PPVs that are already selling huge numbers, that is quite impressive. The other PPVs are basically "Whatever" PPVs. Yes, Brock helped increase the buyrate by 17%....and that is impressive, but not even on the same level as the Rock......

Now runalong and find the Tin Man and Lion.....ok Scarecrow.....

Thank you for bringing up this point.

Extreme Rules saw 251,000 buys worldwide last month

WWE Survivor Series 2011 drew 280,000 buys

Next point? I have no ability to comprehend how you all find it so difficult to believe the guy who drew a 1.6m buyrate could not outdraw The Rock. This is the man who was the biggest draw in MMA by a mile, and on ppv in general over the past decade.

 

[Biggems]

Thank you for bringing up this point.

Extreme Rules saw 251,000 buys worldwide last month

WWE Survivor Series 2011 drew 280,000 buys

Next point? I have no ability to comprehend how you all find it so difficult to believe the guy who drew a 1.6m buyrate could not outdraw The Rock. This is the man who was the biggest draw in MMA by a mile, and on ppv in general over the past decade.

well obviously he wasnt impressive enough to get me to watch....however, i did tune in to see Herschel Walker

 

[Kevinicus]

This belongs in off topic, not sports :

QFT!!

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Well your absolutely right. There is a huge difference between popping a buyrate for a unimportant throwaway ppv vs the biggest show of the year. It's far more impressive.

Now lets take this fantasy world you are in. Survivor Series 2011, 14% increase year over year - The Rocks in ring return.

So I guess it is fair to assume that with the best case numbers The Rock is worth 14%. Brock with a 3 week buildup on a PPV with much worse standing than Suvivor Series was worth 17%. Sorry, Brock is a far larger draw than The Rock could hope to be. You are not arguing speculation, you are arguing something that has now been proven 3 times - Rocks 3 majorly hyped up returns on major PPVs are all below Brocks return with a 3 week buildup.

How can one even argue this? It's comical. :laugh1:. I guess the only argument you could make is that WWE is lying... Which would be a ridiculous argument to make.

Did you really just say it's more impressive to bring up the ratings of a trash PPV?

You're an idiot when it comes to wrestling. It's really that simple. It's way EASIER to bring up the ratings of a crappy PPV. Why? Because it's a crappy PPV. Bring in any big time wrestler for it and guess what happens? The ratings go up.

A lot.

Why?

Because the PPV sucks. So you bring in someone like Brock the ratings go up, big.


Now to pop the ratings at a premiere PPV (Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, Survivor Series) it's much harder to increase because those PPV's are ALREAY POPULAR and ALREADY going to draw tons of people.


This is simple stuff here. My 10 year old son understands it better than you. But, as usual, you're a fan boy for a certain person and the morons on your favorite wrestling dirt sheet site agreed with you so you ran here to post something incredibly stupid and then make it worse by trying to back it up with an even more stupid line of reasoning.


The fact that you don't understand simple things like popping a rating on a crappy PPV being easier than popping the rating on THE PPV of the year is the only thing comical here.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

For a very easy reference, and something that I believe you'll understand being a gaming fan yourself, it works like this.


If you play Call of Duty you'll see people who are really bad at the game and have terrible K/D ratios. These bad players with these bad K/Ds are the equal of Extreme Rules.


Then you'll see people who are very good with very good K/D ratios. These people are Wrestlemania.


It's VERY easy for the people with a piss poor K/D to improve their K/D because, well, it stinks. It doesn't take much at all to improve it.


The people with the very high K/D it's a lot harder to improve it because, well, it's already damn good.


That's also why it's always FAR more impressive when someone with a high K/D actually improves theirs.


People with a 2.5 K/D or higher who are able to raise their level of play and increase that 2.5 to even a 2.8 are far more impressive, and put in a whole lot more hard work, than some one who improved their K/D from an abysmal .35 to a .94


The increase is 'bigger' because there wasn't much choice but for the number to get better.


I'm certain you understand that because I know you like your video games as much as the rest of us and I know that you've seen how much easier it is to increase you K/D when it's low then when it's already high.

 

[silverbear]

How can one even argue this? It's comical. :laugh1:.

You're the one who's comical, fan-boy... as another poster has already noted, Rock's effect on the buy rate is more impressive than Lesnar's effect on the buy rate because Rock started out with a show that is always among the best buy rates...

It's just like in golf, it's far harder to go from a 5 handicap to a 2 than it is to go from a 20 handicap to a 15...

To put it another way, comparing the percentage of increase in both pay per views won't tell us as much as telling us the number of new purchases for both... if you start out at 10 million purchases the year before, and only draw 5 per cent more, then you've added 500,000 new viewers... but if you start out at 6 million purchases for the other pay per view the previous year, and draw 7 per cent more, then you've only added 420,000 new viewers... the percentages suggest that the second pay per view performed better, but the raw numbers tell quite a different story...

If you'd stop being such a pitiful fanboy for just a second, you might be able to figure that out for yourself... let's just say that if I'm promoting a pay per view event, I'm gonna throw more money at Rock to take part in it than I am Lesnar (who is still the quintessential one trick pony, when it comes to wrestling)...

 

[silverbear]

For a very easy reference, and something that I believe you'll understand being a gaming fan yourself, it works like this.

I think you're wasting your time, pal, apparently R2A is unclear about how percentages work...

 

[Ren]

For a very easy reference, and something that I believe you'll understand being a gaming fan yourself, it works like this.


If you play Call of Duty you'll see people who are really bad at the game and have terrible K/D ratios. These bad players with these bad K/Ds are the equal of Extreme Rules.


Then you'll see people who are very good with very good K/D ratios. These people are Wrestlemania.


It's VERY easy for the people with a piss poor K/D to improve their K/D because, well, it stinks. It doesn't take much at all to improve it.


The people with the very high K/D it's a lot harder to improve it because, well, it's already damn good.

Not the best example since it depends on the total number of K/Ds

Lets say the total numbers of kills and deaths might be something like 100 000 off .500 meaning you'd have to kill 100 000 straight without dying or go 2:1 on the next 200 000 either way it's going to take an awful long time to improve

If you're bad enough for long enough it's hard to fix it, trust me i know, i used to play CoD4 a lot and i suck so bad at it :laugh2: