Skip to main content

1.9 Million Buys?!?

I would be incredibly skeptical of that number.  To say the least. Not to mention it generally takes at least a few weeks to get prelim numbers.

Still, if so, go Rock.  

Edited to add:  Dave made a quick comment on the WON board that Ramsey probably misheard 1.09 million, which would be a much more reasonable number.


  1. If it's true it makes the stock dropping to the lowest price in a year even more bizarre.

    I like Rocky but really, a million extra buys is ridiculous. 

  2. I don't buy that number either. I predict the real number is somewhere in the 900,000 range. 

  3. It'd be really awesome for WWE if this is the case. I feel like since last summer WWE's been on that kind of roll that in 97 led to business turning around and the boom years later on. I think they've found the right lead to take from UFC (besides Brock, of course): not incorporating more MMA offense in the ring, not producing shows to look more like a sports event, but making big never before seen/rarely before seen matchups a selling point. I think that the combinations of Rock/Brock/Cena/Punk/etc. each ppv are what will sell it to most people, rather than the ongoing storylines where each ppv is another chapter in it and everyone wrestles everyone a million times.

  4. No chance this is real.  It takes a couple of weeks, not a couple of days, for all the cable providers to report their numbers, especially if it pops a big buyrate

    Mayweather-De La Hoya was the biggest PPV of all time and it took 3 weeks to get all the numbers together.

  5. I think it's safe to assume this number isn't real, or even close to what the actual number is (I predicted 1.1m). But, hypothetically speaking, if this number WAS real, would the people bitching about Rock and Brock being put over the roster shut their mouths? What's the minimum # of buys for you people to quit bitching about something that hasn't even happened yet?

  6. You know who's *really* hoping this number is way off? Miz. Cause if Rock added a million buys then maybe Miz DID deserve to be blamed for SvS.

    And just to reiterate, I don't believe this number is real. Or close to what the actual number is.

  7. Popping one huge buyrate is never going to be worth making your entire roster look like losers.

    Ask WCW.

  8. Good point. Poor Miz, he was rumored to be getting a big spot after WrestleMania too, I wonder how much the Brock/Bryan thing has damaged that possibility for him.

  9. Why does everyone assume this will lead to the whole roster looking like losers? I think it's pretty clear the ultimate endgame for this whole storyline is Rock dropping the belt to Cena after he beats Brock at Mania. If Rock beats Brock, then retires and vacates the belt THEN I see the problem.

    This is an epic storyline where a guy with impressive amateur/pro wrestling and MMA credentials plays the role of the dragon terrorizing the village. In the words of Jim Cornette "Frankenstein has to kill a few villagers" and you're not wasting Brock's limited schedule on jobber matches. There is NO shame in losing to Brock Lesnar, and they can make guys look good in the loss. How many Invasion fantasy booking scenarios involved signing the heavy hitters (Hogan, Goldberg, Sting, Nash) and letting them run wild for months only for the WWF to eventually get their revenge? Well in this case the guy pegged to slay the dragon is Rock, who may be a part-timer but is likely to still wrestle post WM29. Then Rock can start putting over the new generation, and given his track record I think he'd do it gladly.

    Can you blame them for wanting to put their #1 current wrestling draw vs the #1 MMA draw ever at WM instead of Daniel Bryan or CM Punk?

    If the storyline is entertaining and Rock puts some guys over, what does it matter if Punk has to job 8 times in 2012 instead of 7?

  10. I agree it's not like it's guaranteed that this will end with everyone looking dumb. There certainly is a way to do it that makes all parties come out looking better, I was just speaking specifically to Scott's idea of "Brock runs roughshod, only Rocky can stop him" scenario.

    My fear is that they'll keep Brock/Rock/Cena as the focus at the expense of everyone else. In my head it seems like, if they run those three against each other all year, all it will do is make Cena be perceived as even more above the rest of the roster than he is now.

    tl;dr Goddamnit how does this involve Punk

  11. I would say 1.9 is too out of the realm of possibility, maybe I'm giving Rock to much credit here but I would think his match vs Cena is about 1 million buys alone, right? Then throw in the people who wanted to see Undertaker/HHH. I initially thought they would hit no higher than 1.5

  12. at least to me as a fan, I like it a lot more. I mean one of the best examples on how not to do it: Cena vs. Orton. they gave us that match so many times that I just don't care about seeing these two against each other anymore. but if they had limited their matches to a very few, it would have been a much bigger deal (think about how high the expectation for Cena vs. Batista at WrestleMania 26 - yes, they fought each other at SummerSlam on ppv before. but that was over one and a half years before that).

  13. Two years ago when they had Cena-Orton try to do a Hogan-Warrior moment and NO ONE in the crowd reacted was one of the funniest things I've ever seen at a wrestling event.

  14. 1.9 million buys would be absolutely insane and astronomical. 

    I will be VERY surprised if the number comes out that high, unless they are doing some creative accounting, by counting countries where they gave it away for nothing or at a very discounted rate.

    There has never been a wrestling PPV that has approached that number and if it ends up at that, it would be one of the most purchased PPVs in any genre, really only to a couple of huge boxing events.

  15. The majority of the roster has had how many years without the Rock or Brock around to get themselves over.  WHO put Rock over to make him a big star?  Who put Mick Foley over to make him a big star?  Who put Shawn Michaels, or HHH or Stone Cover to "pass the torch"?

    The point is that the CM Punks, Miz's, and Daniel Bryan's of the WWE have had all kinds of time to make people give a sh*t about them, and the ratings and PPV buys are still in the gutter.  WWE is a BUSINESS, it's Vince's job to to whatever it takes to make his stockholders some money. 

  16. Bret Hart put Shawn Michaels over. Undertaker made Foley with their feuds, and Stone Cold wouldn't have been the star he was without Bret Hart. And Triple H sure as hell was made by Mick Foley. Cena helped make Punk by having Punk go over him twice. 

    The point is, yeah, these guys did get themselves over, but without the right wins under their belt, no one would have given a shit. If Mankind never got those wins over Taker, he would have been just another monster of the month for Taker. 

    Miz beat Cena in the main event of Wrestlemania, and guess what? No one cares because Cena won every encounter after that, rendering it null and void.

  17. EXACTLY. Harry Hood , did you watch the Attitude era? Austin was the fucking man after the Submission match at Wrestlemania XIII and became king of the mountain beating Shawn Michaels at Wrestelmania XIV. Foley was the first guy in forever to seem like he had the Undertaker's number. And Triple H began one of the greatest eighteen month runs in in-ring wrestling history with his feud with Foley. 

    I mentioned this to Mar Solo earlier: Punk made himself a star, beating Cena made him a superstar, and if Punk beats the Rock or Brock convincingly he can be made a superduperstar. 

    But you're right, in WCW NO ONE put others over until it was too late with two rare exceptions: DDP and Goldberg. Savage putting DDP over MADE DDP and Goldberg beating Hogan was HUGE. 

  18. I honestly don't care about buys. It's about entertainment to me and Rock didn't entertain me. I can truthfully say that I marked out more for Brock's moment on Raw than ANYTHING the Rock has done in the past year. I also don't see the value in using two part-time guys to get themselves over. I'm glad Rock won because if they have someone else beat him it'll give them a huge rub. 

  19. Oh come on, why the skepticism? They knew that Wrestlemania 7 was the most-watched PPV in history before the show was even over ;-).

  20. Ah yes, haha, I guess Gorilla Monsoon must have been attending the late 1990s Tony Schiavone school of hyperbole that day:

    ".... I've just been informed... this the largest pay-per-view audience, in the history of pay-per-view!" 

    In truth it was more like "the largest pay-per-view audience, in the history of PPV... in the last week... as long as you don't count Tyson/Ruddock!"

    I always figured they did that because of the year of ads pushing that they'd have over 100,000 fans in the building for WrestleMania.  They needed to toot their own horn somehow, I guess.

  21. I can see where Harry Hood is coming from. Wins and losses aren't the be all to end all. Rock became arguably a bigger star (I said ARGUABLY) than Austin even though Austin always beat him. Austin was going to be huge whether or not he beat Shawn Michaels. You cite a feud that "made" Austin where Stone Cold lost every match (except 1 by dq). Austin became the #1 star primarily because of his character and relationship with the Mr. McMahon character. It's sexy to say Foley "made" HHH but I think the pairing with Steph was more important in the overall scheme of things. And what launched Foley to the next level were the sit down interviews with JR (and HiaC, a match he lost, but it's unreasonable to expect anyone to do *that*).

    I'm not saying you can book a guy to lose every match and he'll become a big star, but we smarks tend to overrate the importance of a win here and a loss there. I mentioned this in another post, Punk is going to job 8 times this year, not 7, and there is NO shame in losing to Brock Lesnar. What's more important is the storytelling and giving people a character to latch onto.

    I think a lot of the sour grapes about this whole situation is really about 1 guy (maybe 2): Punk (and now maybe Bryan unless the YES chants were just a 1 week fad). People want to see Punk become a superduperstar and resent Brock and Rock for blocking his path. As Steve Austin showed, you can lose to the top guy but if you have a character the fans love, they'll make you a big deal anyway. Maybe the average fan doesn't love Punk as much as we'd like just cause they don't like him and prefer Cena cause he's cute, funny and honorable. Or Orton cause he's brooding, edgy and badass. Maybe they think Punk's a smarmy jerk, and that has nothing to do with wins and losses.

  22. Wow, that's crazy talk. You're telling me you just watch the show and like what you like, irrespective of how much merch each guy is selling, or what the ratings are? I know 30 Rock has sucked this year cause the ratings are in the shitter, even though it's just as funny as it ever was.

    I should probably give the tongue in cheek stuff a rest for a bit.

    I'm glad that's how you view the show. We were discussing the John Cena Heel Turn last week and it was killing me how many people were looking at it like they were WWE shareholders and not just fans of the product. The one guy who kept talking about what his kid liked was the worst. I point blanked asked him what HE wanted as a FAN and he still wouldn't answer. I think it had to do with target demos.

    For me this is a smh moment equivocal to this past year and Rock's involvement. BROCK LESNAR is back! I don't give a shit what's good for business 5 years down the road (and I don't think this is bad for future business), I care about marking the fuck out like I did Monday night when his music hit.

    And let's be real. Brock could come in and squash Ziggler, Kofi, Sheamus, Cena, Orton, Christian, etc but put over Punk and nobody would complain.

  23. You just kind of proved my point, so thank you.  HHH turned into "the man" by beating another guy from his own era (Foley); Austin became king by beating Shawn Michaels, who was the early gatekeeper to the attitude era.  We may disagree on this, but I think it was Foley's fued with the Rock that really changed him into a bonafide main eventer.  

  24. I'll edit this later to expand on my main point but I'd love to see Brock in there against Ziggler. I think Dolph is the best seller in wrestling right now (I MTFO for Broadus' headbutt on him) and think he and Brock would be money.

  25. I agree with you mostly but it's a two edged sword.  I know that Brock will likely only be around for a year, and I want to enjoy WWE longer than that.  So, yes, I'd prefer to not see WWE have him crush a bunch of guys that potentially could be entertaining me for the next few years.  I personally have no interest in seeing Brock destroy CM Punk at a throwaway PPV only to be fed to the Rock at the biggest show of the year.

  26. Who put Rock over? Seriously?

    Well, Hunter did first in their IC Title series, followed by Foley almost killing himself to get the Rock taken seriously and then Austin basically putting him over by even allowing him to appear in Steve's league.

    So...only the 3 biggest stars of the last 15 years NOT named Rocky Maivia. (He also went over an entire faction called the NoD)

    CM Punk has had roughly 9 months to get over (the same amount of time between Austin 3:16 and the Submission Match) and Bryan is just barely getting started.

    Funny you should mention stockholders, since the stock dropped to a new year low just yesterday (apparently Rocky and Brock don't excite investors much, at least in the short term)


Post a Comment