Random WWE Discussion thread

[Gorsty]

Am I the only one getting sick of the whole "Guest Host" thing. Not just that, but GM's and on-screen authority figures in general in wrestling. Remember back in the Attitude Era when Shawn Michaels was the commisioner? He wasn't on TV every week, and because of that when he did make an appearance and make a decision it was a special occasion.

Whatever happened to matches are made by someone backstage and they happen, or incidents occur which lead to a match, simple booking and less time spent on stupid segments like Shaq and Santino playing Scrabble or Jeremey Piven and Dr Ken cutting a 20 minute promo hyping themselves and then fucking up completely and calling the 2nd biggest PPV on WWE's calender "the SummerFest".

[Axel]

"Guest Host" is an epic fail. It's not doing anything for the product whatsoever and god knows they picked the wrong people to host RAW.

[Dale]

Am I the only one getting sick of the whole "Guest Host" thing. Not just that, but GM's and on-screen authority figures in general in wrestling. Remember back in the Attitude Era when Shawn Michaels was the commisioner? He wasn't on TV every week, and because of that when he did make an appearance and make a decision it was a special occasion.

Whatever happened to matches are made by someone backstage and they happen, or incidents occur which lead to a match, simple booking and less time spent on stupid segments like Shaq and Santino playing Scrabble or Jeremey Piven and Dr Ken cutting a 20 minute promo hyping themselves and then fucking up completely and calling the 2nd biggest PPV on WWE's calender "the SummerFest".

To an extent yes, but it all depends on who they actually make as the guest host. For me personally all of the hosts have been been either great (Shaq & Mayweather) or tolerable (Seth Green & Piven) and the only real dud has been ZZ Top. Despite the annoying asian guy, Piven I thought wasn't that bad and had that added swerve at the end by turning on Cena. You then move onto the wrestling related personalities and they too can throw out some interesting twists. Slaughter in Canada was genious, Ted DiBiase giving his son a title shot was also good because that wouldn't make any sense whatsoever if a normal GM was in charge.

"Guest Host" is an epic fail. It's not doing anything for the product whatsoever and god knows they picked the wrong people to host RAW.

Well the boost in ratings it's been generating is hardly an epic fail is it? It may not be doing anything to the actual wrestling product, but it's hardly harming it in all fairness and I find it generally makes it more interesting. If they are picking the wrong people to host the show, who should they be choosing?

[RyPrax]

"Guest Host" is an epic fail. It's not doing anything for the product whatsoever and god knows they picked the wrong people to host RAW.

No it isn't, you're wrong.
 
Since the guest host thing started, they haven't dropped below a 3.5 in the ratings. They've come close to hitting 4 several times. And throughout the whole thing, they've made a lot of ins in the entertainment industry, and I'm sure they've created some new fans.
 
Not to mention that Dusty helped put over Cody, and Ted Sr. his son too. Mayweather helped put over MVP and Henry, Shaq got some big media hits for him and Big Show on his edition of RAW, and that kind of stuff should continue to benefit the WWE.

I can say that some hosts haven't been successes, but you can't expect them to get the right guy every time.
 
In fact, out of all the hosts, the only fails were Piven and ZZ Top.

[Axel]

Well the boost in ratings it's been generating is hardly an epic fail is it? It may not be doing anything to the actual wrestling product, but it's hardly harming it in all fairness and I find it generally makes it more interesting. If they are picking the wrong people to host the show, who should they be choosing?

Have you been keep track lately? The last time RAW had a boost in ratings was when Shaq took over. This past monday's episode of RAW got a 3.6. That's not a boost to me.

[narcolepsy]

Mayweather got a 3.9 last week.

[RyPrax]

Well the boost in ratings it's been generating is hardly an epic fail is it? It may not be doing anything to the actual wrestling product, but it's hardly harming it in all fairness and I find it generally makes it more interesting. If they are picking the wrong people to host the show, who should they be choosing?

Have you been keep track lately? The last time RAW had a boost in ratings was when Shaq took over. This past monday's episode of RAW got a 3.6. That's not a boost to me.

 
Ratings since May:
 
May 4: 3.3
- May 11: 3.3
- May 18: 3.6
- May 25: 3.2
- June 1: 3.4
- June 8: 3.6
- June 15: 3.6
 
Average: 3.4
 
---------------------------
Ratings since Trump/Guest Hosts:

- June 22: 4.5
- June 29: 3.9
- July 6: 3.6
- July 13: 3.5
- July 20: 3.5
- July 27: 3.95
- August 3: 3.6
- August 10: 3.8
- August 17: 3.8
- August 24: 3.9
- August 31: 3.6
 
Average: 3.8
 
So, either you're dumb, slow, mathematically deficient, or, once again, you simply weren't paying attention. ADD is a hell of a thing.
 
Since the guest host thing started, RAW hasn't posted under a 3.5, and while the one number over 4 was due to trump, they came really close 3 times thereafter, and have averaged .4 better in the ratings since the period beginning in may. If you want a longer scale, it's still about .3 better than the shows after wrestlemania, and better than the rest of the year before that overall.

[Axel]

Well the boost in ratings it's been generating is hardly an epic fail is it? It may not be doing anything to the actual wrestling product, but it's hardly harming it in all fairness and I find it generally makes it more interesting. If they are picking the wrong people to host the show, who should they be choosing?

Have you been keep track lately? The last time RAW had a boost in ratings was when Shaq took over. This past monday's episode of RAW got a 3.6. That's not a boost to me.

 
Ratings since May:
 
May 4: 3.3
- May 11: 3.3
- May 18: 3.6
- May 25: 3.2
- June 1: 3.4
- June 8: 3.6
- June 15: 3.6
 
Average: 3.4
 
---------------------------
Ratings since Trump/Guest Hosts:

- June 22: 4.5
- June 29: 3.9
- July 6: 3.6
- July 13: 3.5
- July 20: 3.5
- July 27: 3.95
- August 3: 3.6
- August 10: 3.8
- August 17: 3.8
- August 24: 3.9
- August 31: 3.6
 
Average: 3.8
 
So, either you're dumb, slow, mathematically deficient, or, once again, you simply weren't paying attention. ADD is a hell of a thing.
 
Since the guest host thing started, RAW hasn't posted under a 3.5, and while the one number over 4 was due to trump, they came really close 3 times thereafter, and have averaged .4 better in the ratings since the period beginning in may. If you want a longer scale, it's still about .3 better than the shows after wrestlemania, and better than the rest of the year before that overall.

Wow what a big difference. 8-)

I find it funny since back in May, RAW was still horse shit. The whole Guest Host concept is to cover it up and bring in ratings by throwing in random celebs to help their problems.

Seriously your personal insults are tiring and lame. Just cut it out. If I'm not insulting you then don't insult me.

[RyPrax]

Wow what a big difference. 8-)

I find it funny since back in May, RAW was still horse shit. The whole Guest Host concept is to cover it up and bring in ratings by throwing in random celebs to help their problems.

Seriously your personal insults are tiring and lame. Just cut it out. If I'm not insulting you then don't insult me.

You're a moron

And you're changing the subject. You said the WWE hadn't received a boost in ratings, whereas they've received a big boost in ratings since the whole thing started. .4 is pretty big, almost half a nielsen point. I bet you didn't know that that's almost 500,000 extra viewers, on average, that have been tuning into raw since the guest host thing started. That IS a big difference, so don't try to shrug it off.

Specifically, you said that they hadn't received a boost since Shaq, regardless of the fact that Mayweather (who's involvement was pretty damn good vs. the wrestling content on the show) drew a similar rating. And regardless of the fact that Trump, who was essentially a guest host, and Batista, also drew big ratings (vs. the rest, which weren't even bad).

And the product is shit, in your opinion. Personally, I've enjoyed most of the raws since the guest host thing started, because I don't tune in just to pick everything apart.

[Axel]

Oh of course you would enjoy it. Anything WWE you would eat up. Good or Bad. 8-)

Guest Host was to bring extra ratings, guess what?...It's bullshit. If you want to bring in extra ratings, put on newer storylines that aren't shit. How about pushing a newer heel that isn't Randy Orton?

It may look all good on TV but every week, It's also a report talking about how the Guest Host situation causes backstage confusion because Vince and company aren't there when needed.

It's just a lame excuse not to better the product and make the right choices. Right now, they should have explored more on the McMahon/Orton feud that took place but instead this Guest Host shit has ruined any sort of continuity or entertaining storylines they put out.

Fact is RAW had the highest ratings possible during the McMahon/Orton feud but ever since it dropped to 3.4's and instead of putting your writers to work on something to bring the viewers in they come up with a cop out with the whole Guest Host thing. This is called LOGIC.

But It's all in my opinion. Like it or not.

[Dale]

Oh of course you would enjoy it. Anything WWE you would eat up. Good or Bad. 8-)

Guest Host was to bring extra ratings, guess what?...It's bullshit. If you want to bring in extra ratings, put on newer storylines that aren't shit. How about pushing a newer heel that isn't Randy Orton?

It's just a lame excuse not to better the product and make the right choices. Right now, they should have explored more on the McMahon/Orton feud that took place but instead this Guest Host shit has ruined any sort of continuity or entertaining storylines they put out.

Well that's rather contradictory right there. First you say to push a new heel / put on a new storyline, yet you then say they should carried on more with the McMahon / Orton feud which fortunately they didn't do because it was done to death and i'm almost positive that if I trawled back through old threads you would have been saying the same thing.

The simple fact is whether you like it or not, the whole Guest Host deal has actually made Raw a hell of a lot more enjoyable than it used to be for alot of people. Different hosts with varying characters putting a different spin on the show.

[RyPrax]

Oh of course you would enjoy it. Anything WWE you would eat up. Good or Bad. 8-)

Guest Host was to bring extra ratings, guess what?...It's bullshit. If you want to bring in extra ratings, put on newer storylines that aren't shit. How about pushing a newer heel that isn't Randy Orton?

It may look all good on TV but every week, It's also a report talking about how the Guest Host situation causes backstage confusion because Vince and company aren't there when needed.

It's just a lame excuse not to better the product and make the right choices. Right now, they should have explored more on the McMahon/Orton feud that took place but instead this Guest Host shit has ruined any sort of continuity or entertaining storylines they put out.

Fact is RAW had the highest ratings possible during the McMahon/Orton feud but ever since it dropped to 3.4's and instead of putting your writers to work on something to bring the viewers in they come up with a cop out with the whole Guest Host thing. This is called LOGIC.

But It's all in my opinion. Like it or not.

If you seriously don't see the problems and inconsistecies in your posts then you seriously have a problem... you claim something is a fact and logic (nevermind that the actual FACTS, which were posted in this very thread and you chose to shrug off and ignore claim otherwise), and finish off oyur post by saying it's your opinion.

WWE is entertainment. They run product in order to get ratings, in order to make money. RIght now, the best way to do that is with guest hosts, because they tried that, and it worked.

[J.D]

Axel they aren't going to be doing the Guest host thing forever so enjoy it while you can. I think it makes a refreshing change and was a good idea. It's never been done before and for now it's fun (it will get stale eventually but it isn't yet.)
Those ratings show it is good for business and I actually enjoy seeing guest hosts. In fact I'm surprised you don't like the guest hosts as I'm sure that is one thing you haven't complained about before.

[chappers]

Oh of course you would enjoy it. Anything WWE you would eat up. Good or Bad. 8-)

Guest Host was to bring extra ratings, guess what?...It's bullshit. If you want to bring in extra ratings, put on newer storylines that aren't shit. How about pushing a newer heel that isn't Randy Orton?

It may look all good on TV but every week, It's also a report talking about how the Guest Host situation causes backstage confusion because Vince and company aren't there when needed.

It's just a lame excuse not to better the product and make the right choices. Right now, they should have explored more on the McMahon/Orton feud that took place but instead this Guest Host shit has ruined any sort of continuity or entertaining storylines they put out.

Fact is RAW had the highest ratings possible during the McMahon/Orton feud but ever since it dropped to 3.4's and instead of putting your writers to work on something to bring the viewers in they come up with a cop out with the whole Guest Host thing. This is called LOGIC.

But It's all in my opinion. Like it or not.

Everyone on here enjoys WWE because we watch it. Doesn't that make it a little bit obvious that we will probably enjoy a lot of the things they do. I swear in some other topic you claimed that you liked it, yet I don't thnk I've seen you say one good thing about it.

You have talked about wanting fresh new ideas thrown into the business, isn't that what the guest hosts offer? It has improved viewings, Prax proved that point.

I actually want to go in a topic without you whining in the WWE area, i'm getting sick of your Bart Simpson like attitude, your not down with the kids, you're just a faggot.

[Gorsty]

Well the boost in ratings it's been generating is hardly an epic fail is it? It may not be doing anything to the actual wrestling product, but it's hardly harming it in all fairness and I find it generally makes it more interesting. If they are picking the wrong people to host the show, who should they be choosing?

Have you been keep track lately? The last time RAW had a boost in ratings was when Shaq took over. This past monday's episode of RAW got a 3.6. That's not a boost to me.

 
Ratings since May:
 
- April 6: 3.9
- April 13: 3.7
- April 20: 3.7
- April 27: 3.4
- May 4: 3.3
- May 11: 3.3
- May 18: 3.6
- May 25: 3.2
- June 1: 3.4
- June 8: 3.6
- June 15: 3.6
 
Average: 3.5
 
---------------------------
Ratings since Trump/Guest Hosts:

- June 22: 4.5 (*)
- June 29: 3.9
- July 6: 3.6
- July 13: 3.5
- July 20: 3.5
- July 27: 3.95
- August 3: 3.6
- August 10: 3.8
- August 17: 3.8
- August 24: 3.9
- August 31: 3.6
 
Average: 3.8
 
So, either you're dumb, slow, mathematically deficient, or, once again, you simply weren't paying attention. ADD is a hell of a thing.
 
Since the guest host thing started, RAW hasn't posted under a 3.5, and while the one number over 4 was due to trump, they came really close 3 times thereafter, and have averaged .4 better in the ratings since the period beginning in may. If you want a longer scale, it's still about .3 better than the shows after wrestlemania, and better than the rest of the year before that overall.

So you're comparing and getting an average for the shows, yet you compare 7 weeks pre-Trump to 11 weeks post-"guest host phase".

I've just fixed it, which includes the previous 4 weeks, while the average is still lower than the "guest host phase", but its not as bad as a 3.4, you also need to take into account that one of the RAW's (Trumps first episode that scored a 4.5) was a commercial free episode which likely got a higher rating because people were more interested in that gimmick.

Just because the ratings are higher doesn't mean the shows are better for it. The best rated episodes of iMPACT in recent months are the worst episodes, same goes for SmackDown!, the better shows are getting lower numbers.