Skip to main content

WWE Win-Loss Records After 22 Weeks

Hi Scott,

After 5 months, let's take one more look at the breakdown of the win-loss records in WWE.  A couple notes to start.  There have been 112 different wrestlers taking part in a match on WWE TV in 2013.  I am treating Michael McGillicutty and Curtis Axel as two separate people, in order to better track the records.

 

Most Total Matches
  • 46 – Randy Orton
  • 44 – Antonio Cesaro
  • 43 – Damien Sandow
  • 41 – Sheamus
  • 40 – Wade Barrett, Daniel Bryan, Cody Rhodes
Most Total Wins
  • 33 – Randy Orton
  • 28 – Sheamus, Alberto Del Rio
  • 22 – Kane
  • 21 – Daniel Bryan
  • 20 – The Miz
Most Total Losses
  • 29 – Antonio Cesaro
  • 28 – Damien Sandow
  • 27 – Cody Rhode
  • 25 – Heath Slater
  • 22 – Titus O'Neil, Darren Young
Best Winning % (min 5 matches)
  • 0.938 – Roman Reigns
  • 0.917 – R-Truth
  • 0.857 – Paige
  • 0.800 – Alberto Del Rio
  • 0.789 – Dean Ambrose
Worst Winning % (min 5 matches)
  • 0.000 – Yoshi Tatsu, Alicia Fox, JTG, Zeb Colter, Rosa Mendes
  • 0.038 – Heath Slater
  • 0.048 – Primo
  • 0.050 – Epico
  • 0.083 – Aksana
Fewest Wins (min 5 matches)
  • 0 - Yoshi Tatsu, Alicia Fox, JTG, Zeb Colter, Rosa Mendes
  • 1 – Heath Slater, Primo, Epico, Aksana, Michael McGillicutty
  • 2 – Drew McIntyre, Jinder Mahal, Santion Marella, Emma

Comments

  1. Forgot to plug the site for the complete stats http://wweresults2013.blogspot.ca/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sandow and Cesaro's records are horrible. They should be able to tell me the light configurations of about 20 different arenas.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I know Win / Loss records don't matter but it surely doesn't help that the three wrestlers that have lost the most matches this year (Sandow, Rhodes, Cesaro) are three who you would conceivably want to build up to main event level talents in the next year or so

    ReplyDelete
  4. Worst_in_the_WorldJune 3, 2013 at 10:22 AM

    Rhodes Scholars would have been absolutely perfect as long-reigning tag champs, but just came along at the wrong time. (In that Hell No and now Shield needed to be kept strong with long reigns.) Still hope that they eventually get a year where the tag division is booked around them, as a strong Rhodes Scholars title run is exactly what they both need to get their careers hot again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That basically is his role although he does need to beat the lower card heels every once in awhile to maintain his credibility. I wouldn't be surprised if he faces Curtis Axel in the next two weeks to give him the rub.

    ReplyDelete
  6. They should have given Sandoe some cheap wins over Sheamus in order to provide some heat in their "mini-feud."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Worst_in_the_WorldJune 3, 2013 at 11:10 AM

    Eh, I guess my problem is that WWE considers guys like Rhodes/Cesaro/Sandow to be "lower card heels" that Truth is on a higher level than. Like, I think at MOST Truth shouldn't beat anyone higher than 3MB. Again, between Truth's longevity and the Lil' Jimmy gimmick, he's got enough credibility to job to guys like Axel without needing to win at all himself.



    I dunno, having Truth ever beat a Cesaro-type guy makes no sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Christopher HirschJune 3, 2013 at 11:31 AM

    Couldn't agree more. They protect him way too much for a guy they have no real plans for. Sad they abandoned his heel run because that was the best he had ever been in WWE.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with this, but WWE's "I pin you, you pin me" booking makes it hard to take any of the midcard seriously. As mentioned further down, Big E is trading wins with del Rio, so this is the fed's answer to pushing and protecting both, but it eventually comes out as running sideways (the only way this works is if both are treading water until Zigs comes back, and Zigs' concussion was deemed worse than anyone thought).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Would rather him play Hollywood slime ball, trying to rip sin Cara's mask off

    ReplyDelete
  11. Number of heels in top 7 (matches wrestled): 4

    Number of heels in top 6 (matches won): 0 for 0%

    Number of heels in bottom 6 (matches lost): 6 for 100%


    Analysis: why are we expected to care about a bunch of goofs who never win, much less invest in faces who always beat them?


    Analysis #2: bring back Awesome Truth


    Analysis #3: stop wasting the Prime Time Players

    ReplyDelete
  12. Orton, Sheamus, and Del Rio are the lamest stalest characters on the show yet have the most number of wins. The Orton Protection Plan is just mind blowing. No need to watch Raw and see Orton win again.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Worst_in_the_WorldJune 3, 2013 at 12:55 PM

    Looking at something like this and seeing how badly damaged most of the roster is, it makes me wish there was a viable secondary promotion that some of these guys could go to in order to rebuild. If WCW were around today, at least there'd be somewhere for damaged acts like Rhodes Scholars, Cesaro, PTP etc to move to and rebuild their careers. OR they'd at least have some degree of bargaining power in keeping themselves from being totally jobbed out by WWE, because they'd have somewhere else to go.


    I mean, how much longer can WWE keep billing guys like Cody and Wade Barret as newcomers who are looking to "make their mark"? Christ, they've both been around forever. At this point Cody has had a longer run than Mr. Perfect or Rick Rude ever had in WWE. Fans don't look at them as newcomers anymore, they look at them as old jobbers.


    It's a shame that TNA isn't such a creative and financial mess, because having that viable alternative would make a world of difference for the talented WWE guys who are floundering.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I feel like I'm constantly fighting this, but tell me how TNA is a financial mess? Tell me their last 5 years of revenues and profits rather than guessing how they're a "mess".

    ReplyDelete
  15. I agree with you in that I thought Face Miz COULD'VE been something pretty good and inspirational if they had potrayed him as a lifetime fan who busted his ass to get where he was in the business. But no, it seems like all the WWE's faces have to be wisecracking smartasses with the exception of Randy Orton (which, should be to no one's surprise, because he has a different, more "serious" character, stays over despite doing nothing of importance for the most part.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Worst_in_the_WorldJune 3, 2013 at 1:22 PM

    Hey listen, maybe you're right and they're making a giant profit off of 40-50k PPV buys a year, stagnant-to-declining ratings, and Hulkamania shirts.

    But let's put that aside, and for the sake of argument say that TNA is somehow profitable. One thing that is pretty clear from the last 5 years or so, and related to my thought above, is that TNA (unlike WCW even before the nWo era) is not a financial or creative alternative for wrestlers to go. Basically TNA has only been able to sign away guys who are already completely on the outs with WWE (Jeff Hardy, Angle, Hogan, Mr. Kennedy) or someone like RVD, who wants the easy schedule.

    TNA isn't financially competitive, other than giving huge money to the over the hill gang. And their ratings and mainstream awareness is so low that it seems wrestlers would rather job out on WWE TV than try to make it big in TNA.

    So TNA financials aside, my arguement is that TNA is far from equivalent as a competitor to even JCP-level WCW, and that's exacerbating the problem for the Codys, Wades, and Sandows of the world. They have no leverage, and no viable place to rebuild their careers.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Way to twist my words. Tell me where I said they're making "a giant profit"? Don't be a fucking douche, dude. All I'm saying is NO ONE KNOWS. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Man, that Randy Orton is really good, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I enjoyed his rebuttal and thought it was just fine. Nothing "douche like" about it. His original "financial mess" comment basically meant that TNA is no position to steal a bunch of guys from the E and pay them handsomely.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Swagger is a microcosm of the problem - start kinda hot at least ideawise (Zeb was a stroke of brilliance), then just let it fart out while Jack is made to look like a moron.



    Just in case WWE writers are reading: heels make faces, not vice-versa. The ultimate babyface of Western canon faced down the Roman Empire and got over. The Romans were booked strong, and the people have bought into it for 2000+ years*




    *this is not a religious commentary, but a really concrete example of what writers should want in a Good vs. Evil matchup.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I beg to differ. He was 33 wins. The Viper is sssssssssssssstupendous.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Love the winningest wrestler on the roster not being involved in a major feud. It's important to put him over strong so he can fight That Guy later on down the road at The Thing.

    ReplyDelete
  23. And is it safe to assume that That Guy will have a lot of losses yet still be billed as the future at The Thing?

    ReplyDelete
  24. The real problem is, and this you can blame TV-PG for, is this belief that the heels must always lose when facing equal or better competition, although you need to have credible heels to build strong faces. If your heels are losing all the time then there's no one for your top faces to wrestle. Besides the members of the Shield -- who have there own titles --and who else is John Cena is going to face when his feud with Ryback ends? Guys like the Rhodes Scholars and Cesaro should be protected. I actually hope Kofi turns heel after he comes back from surgery because there's nowhere else for his face character to go.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Worst_in_the_WorldJune 3, 2013 at 1:54 PM

    OK, I apologize for twisting your words. My intention isn't to be a douche. (But goddamn it, it's a message board, so that's no easy feat.)

    That said, yes we don't know exactly all their financials. We're not their accountants, we don't have privy to their books, so fine. By the letter of the law, we don't know.

    But I don't think it's unreasonable, based on what we can see and gather, to make an educated guess that they're not doing well. I mean, what we know is:

    - The ratings have hovered above a 1.0 forever, and have actually been dropping in the last 2 years. Ratings post-Hogan/Bischoff are lower than they were before they took over. Relatively low ratings on a decline is not good, financially.

    - Spike TV, itself, is far from a powerhouse. The ratings on that network are abysmal, and they're frequently mentioned as a candidtae for complete overhaul. If next week Spike TV became, I dunno, Time Magazine TV, would TNA have a cable home? (Based on their ratings.)

    - PPV numbers, according to what Meltzer reports, are very low (around 10k per event) and getting lower every year. Changing over from 12-ppvs to 4-ppvs didn't increase the buyrate on the remaining PPVs, which comes out to a big decrease on the year.

    - Mainstream brand awareness, which obviously impacts the merchandizing money, is just not there. They've been around for 10 years, and do you ever see see TNA product in stores?

    - Touring-wise, they're doing what--- shows with 1-2k fans? Their PPVs max out at maybe 8k fans? I mean, for a company that's been around for 10 years, and has big names/salaries like Hogan, Hardy, Angle, Sting on the roster, their status as a live attraction seems really low.


    And again, perhaps I used teh wrong words, but my main argument in all of this is that TNA is just not a viable competitor for WWE, and not a viable option for high-quality wrestlers (Cesaro, Rhodes, Sandow, etc) who are being shafted by WWE.



    To me, the main reason for this, even above what TNA can-or-can't pay salary-wise, is the fact that TNA has been such a failure at creating stars. Again, TNA has been around 10 years and hasn't produced one guy who has risen to any kind of mainstream star level. TNA has proven that creatively all they can do is allow former big names (Angle, Hardy, Hogan, Sting) to continue to dominate. If you're not already a former WWE or WCW-main eventer, then your career will not be helped by spending time in TNA.


    So yeah, that's my main point. They're not an alternative for talented WWE "youngsters", and they can't create any new stars, and that's bad for wrestling overall.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Worst_in_the_WorldJune 3, 2013 at 2:02 PM

    I'd love to see them give Air Boom another real run when (IF) Evan Bourne returns. The fans were wayyyy into them in Fall 2011, and wrestling could really use a R&R Express or Rockers type tag team.

    Air Boom winning the tag straps from Shield in a few months, followed by a feud with Rhodes Scholars could really do wonders for everyone involved.

    But as to your point, yeah, it's crazy that the heels lose EVERY match except, basically, when they're in there against Zack Ryder. I mean, in just one year they've already done huge amounts of damage to Sandow and Cesaro, two guys who came in with all the tools to make big money.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Worst_in_the_WorldJune 3, 2013 at 2:24 PM

    Protecting Orton would make some sense if he at least was involved in some money-drawing programs. But holy shit, the guy hasn't had a proper "main event" feud since Henry in Sept 2011. Since then he's spent almost TWO YEARS just pinning Barret, Cody, Sandow, Ziggler (and Del Rio back in the day) week after week with no rhyme or reason. I never understood why he didn't at least have a main event run jobbing to Punk after Punk's heel turn, when they were basically scrambling for faces to put against him anyway.


    And yeah he's hurt now, but are they even gonna use Orton to put over Ziggler in a WHC feud?



    Listen, I'm as sick of watching Orton as anyone, but if they're gonna have him go over the roster anyway, they should at least get their money's worth and put him in some main event feuds. Either that or cut the guy loose.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Of course. How else do you book a heel?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Worst_in_the_WorldJune 3, 2013 at 2:40 PM

    One of the first things I'd ban if I were running WWE is for announcers (JBL, I'm looking at you) to ever use a variation of the phrase "This kid is looking to make a name for himself!" Typically it'll be used during a Cody Rhodes match, to emphasize that Rhodes doesn't have nearly the status/skill/accomplishments of say a Randy Orton.

    Cody Rhodes made his debut in 2000-and-fucking-seven. He's been a regular on WWE-TV for six goddamn years. That's twice the time for either Rick Rude (19887-1990) or Mr. Perfect (1988-1991) and their famous runs. If a guy has been there for 6 years and is still a "youngster" and is still "trying to make a name for himself", well then something is wrong.



    That's why the Shield's dominant run is so goddamn refreshing, because it's what they used to do with a debuting wrestler— say he is awesome and push him to the top. It didn't always work, but at least you weren't watching the same guys flounder for six years.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I don't think the lack of becoming a viable alternative has anything to do with TNA's financials and everything to do with low-visibility and brand awareness.

    For better or worse, WWE IS wrestling (or sports entertainment) these days. Even bringing in the most recognizable name in wrestling history hasn't changed that. If they switched from Spike to a bigger network, it might help, but even then I doubt ratings would near WWE.



    Once WCW went out of business, it was all over for competition to Vince's empire.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Silly me. Me and logic just don't gel sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I've always considered attributing a quote to someone when they didn't say it to be douchey.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Worst_in_the_WorldJune 3, 2013 at 2:59 PM

    Oh totally, but I guess I would say that brand awareness & visibility and financials are not mutually exclusive.

    Maybe it's true that based on the economic climate the past decade, and based on TNA starting out with ZERO brand recognition, that perhaps this indeed is the best they could be doing based on the circumstances. But to me, that's being overly easy on TNA management and creative.

    Based on the size of the WWE audience (and the size of the WCW audience when they folded) we know that there is a certain number of pro wrestling fans,a nd I think it can be reasonably argued that TNA is doing a bad job (based on ratings, attendance, PPV buys) of grabbing a piece of that pie.



    And there's lots of reasons one can come up with for why TNA has underperformed, but I'll go with this over-arching one: they have been a failure at creating new stars. I mean, just awful at it. They've been around ten years and haven't built one, not ONE wrestler that has moved the needle. How could they have been around this long and never created a bonafide star—for example, someone that mainstream WWE fans would feel would be a "big deal" if he crossed over? And as uch as we may all like Bully Ray and the work he's doing, they're making the exact same mistakes they've always made:
    1) Pushed the ex-WWE/WCW guy,
    2) Pushed the heel instead of the face. Holy shit, why does TNA have such a complete aversion to running with a babyface centerpiece?



    I guess that's a long-winded way of saying "TNA sux".

    ReplyDelete
  34. Worst_in_the_WorldJune 3, 2013 at 3:07 PM

    Man, if Sheamus had been patterned more after Orton's "character" (loner ass-kicker who doesn't make jokes) rather than Cena's character (smiley frat boy douche with a bad standup act), then he'd be so much more over right now. Seriously, Sheamus fresh off the face turn at Summerslam 2011 was super over and fun to watch. Wish he could have just retained that.


    And good God, face Miz is just the absolute worst. I almost hope they keep Punk heel, follow through with the Bryan heel turn, and then book a Punk/Bryan vs Cena/Miz Raw Main event. Just to witness the most incredibly tone-deaf heel/face dynamic of all-time.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I thought they were on the right track with Cody around the time of his IC run. If he would have had some more successful title defenses (imagine that) and a little more time I think he was well on his way. I thought he would of been as good a candidate as any to break Honky Tonk Man's longevity record, and made the belt mean a hell of a lot in the process. For the life of me I couldn't tell you who beat Cody for the belt or why, or what they did after that with the IC title. Such a waste.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Worst_in_the_WorldJune 3, 2013 at 3:40 PM

    Big Show beat him! You know, because Big Show really needed that feel good face moment a month before his 800th heel turn.

    Also, I have no idea why they don't just pick a heel and let him break Honky's record. It's not like they make any money or build anyone up with the way they treat the IC title now (bounce it around jobbers), so why not make a big story out of it? My pick would be Sandow, or failing that, Fandango. Would give the guy some major heel heat, and I bet in those months leading up to the record they'd be able to turn IC title defenses into decently rated segments. And they'd still have the US title (or, if Ziggler is still champ, the WHC) to use as the jobber-to-Sheamus belt.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Worst_in_the_WorldJune 3, 2013 at 3:44 PM

    They don't even let Sandow come out on top in the heat-getting "Sandow Show" segments. It's insane how they NEVER allow a heel to come out on top, not even in a non-match situation. It's like if after every time Ted Dibiase stuffed a dollar bill down a jobber's throat, they had Jake Roberts come out and DDT him. Or if every time Rick Rude called the audience a bunch of sweathogs, Sheamus immediately kicked him in the fucking face.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Picking a heel and having him do the Honky Tonk Man's gimmick of slipping away with the IC through technicalities would not be such a bad idea. Having him beat Honky Tonk Man's record by doing so would be even better. Thus when a face finally beats him for the title, that face becomes a star.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I understand that circumstances forced their hand but at this point Big E should be destroying the lower card faces and he should not even be facing , let aloneme trading wins with, people like Alberto Del Rio. They should be building a monster (and eventual strongman face) who fans should be wondering what it would take to stop him.

    ReplyDelete
  40. All those wins and yet doesn't get a title shot.


    Jack Swagger on the other hand won ONE match in 2012, and somehow got himself a title shot at Wrestlemania.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Doctor FunkopolisJune 4, 2013 at 7:13 AM

    Vince has done a couple of things to keep TNA from becoming a legitmate mainstream force:

    1. He refuses to poach any of their talent. By not poaching their guys, he creates a huge bottleneck. TNA has half a dozen guys who could fill up Vince's midcard/upper card and year after year he passes them up. If he did grab them, TNA would by default be the fresher company.

    2. He keeps his guys happy. They get paid pretty well and the work is steady if not spectacularly fulfilling. He may not be actively trying to make anyone the next Steve Austin, but you aren't exactly SD Jones either.

    TNA has done plenty to make themselves a less than welcoming place, but Vince has gone all Sun Tzu by refusing to engage them and is handily winning the "war" (as it were).

    This being said, if Vince went nuts and started stealing guys left and right, Panda Energy would probably end up taking notice you'd see some changes. TNA is almost a win/win investment for them. If it loses money, they still win because business makes no sense.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Worst_in_the_WorldJune 4, 2013 at 8:55 AM

    Huh, that's a really interesting take. Can see your point about the TNA logjam. Plus had Vince at some point poached Samoa Joe or AJ Styles, then by default TNA would have gotten some recognition when WWE fans asked "where did this guy come from?"


    Still though, I think the larger fault for TNA's problems are TNA themselves. I mean, had they followed through with pushing Samoa Joe years ago, or James Storm in the last few years, and any of those guys broke through in a real way (for example, creating a ratings and PPV gains for TNA) then you could be sure that Vince would have made a play for them. The problem is that nobody at TNA has been worth the effort for WWE to sign.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Doctor FunkopolisJune 4, 2013 at 9:43 AM

    They did do a lot of work to make James Storm a main event guy. Hell, they even sent him home to lose a bunch of weight and rebuild his cardio and plugged him right back in where he left off.

    And then suddenly they realized they had other guys to push.

    TNA can't make a guy worth Vince taking because Vince refuses to take anyone who even flirts with the middle of the card.

    When Bischoff got Hogan, he started a series of acquisitions that didn't stop. Solid wrestlers up and down the card. That forced Vince to push new stars, who Bischoff also snatched up.

    After that, there was no room in WCW for anyone new to get over and Vince had roster jam packed with new and interesting guys sprinkled with some loyalists.

    I don't disagree with you that TNA is it's own worst enemy, though. I doubt that Vince is kept up at night because he doesn't have Samoa Joe.

    He should be, but he isn't.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment