RAW Rating was 2.7
http://www.f4wonline.com/more/more-top-stories/118-daily-updates/33452-final-raw-rating-was-a
Smackdown Taped with a Smaller Crew than Usual
With half of the guys from the roster headed over to Abu Dhabi for house shows this week, Smackdown was taped with a much smaller crew than usual
Credit Mike Johnson, PWInsider.com
WWE.com Article on the 15 Greatest Families
http://www.wwe.com/classics/classic-lists/greatest-families-in-wwe-history
http://www.f4wonline.com/more/more-top-stories/118-daily-updates/33452-final-raw-rating-was-a
Smackdown Taped with a Smaller Crew than Usual
With half of the guys from the roster headed over to Abu Dhabi for house shows this week, Smackdown was taped with a much smaller crew than usual
Credit Mike Johnson, PWInsider.com
WWE.com Article on the 15 Greatest Families
http://www.wwe.com/classics/classic-lists/greatest-families-in-wwe-history
Can't say I'm surprised by that low rating. Even if you ignore the MNF factor, the Rays/Red Sox was far more interesting than Abeyance celebrating it's 3rd week as WWE Champion.
ReplyDeleteAnd the McMahons put themselves in the number one spot because of course they do.
ReplyDeleteAbeyance, is that the guy who won the WHC at WMXX?
ReplyDeleteI feel like Joseph Park really put in the time and deserves this run.
ReplyDeleteI like how the pic of the Colons has Rosa in the middle rather than those two goobers.
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to include the McMahons, it follows the Gagnes ought to be on the list.
ReplyDeleteCan it really be argued, though?
ReplyDeleteFor some reason, it didn't occur to me until the Harts came in at #2 that this, too, would be a list HHH would manage to somehow be on.
ReplyDeleteThe Rhodes family should have been #1. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Ramblin Rickey win the World Heavyweight Championship 16 times?
ReplyDeleteIt can be argued. It's just annoying. As Shane had a very short run and Vince is the only other talented one. I suppose HHH counts now.
ReplyDeleteWe want new stars but they keep pushing old guys like Abeyance. Yeah, it was great in 1988 and 1998, but this is 2013!
ReplyDeleteLike with many of the families on the list, you could make the argument that it's really just one guy.
ReplyDeleteSteph has arguably done more harm than good, Shane isn't affiliated with the company anymore and was only of marginal importance when he was, and Linda is one of the worst onscreen performers of the modern era. Vince McMahon is great, but the McMahon family isn't, really.
Although, if we're being fair, there are tons of "great wrestling families" that were mostly considered great by virtue of "contributions of one guy" + "a whole lot of family members".
But I think the Harts deserve to be #1. Bret, Owen and Stu are great in their own right, and when you include in-laws like Davey Boy, Anvil and Tyson Kidd in the way WWE is counting HHH as a McMahon, and if we also factor in current performers like Natalya (without even getting into all the people trained in the Hart Family Dungeon), you have a serious case for why the McMahons shouldn't have been number one.
If you're willing to count marriages, then it's the Harts.
ReplyDeleteHey, the ratings are still better than they were last year.
ReplyDeleteAbeyance is a great champion. Keeps his nose clean, knows how to hand shake, and always does what's best for business.
ReplyDeleteI thought that was Stevie Richards. I'm all for a good storyline involving the WWE Title being held up, but the finish to Battleground left me with little desire to hear "Buy Hell in a Cell, where we promise a new Champion. We really promise this time, not like at Battleground when we promised and didn't deliver."
ReplyDeleteDid they mention how Aurora is the future of the wrestling business as we know it?
ReplyDeleteWhat about the Rotundas with IRS, Bo, and Bray?
ReplyDeleteRamblin Rickey was actually an Anderson.
ReplyDeletePoor Barry O didn't get any mention with the rest of the Ortons.
ReplyDeleteI'd put the Von Erichs #2 (behind the Harts) personally.
ReplyDeleteThe Funks should probably be higher as well IMO, given that Terry and Dory, Jr. were both legendary NWA world champs when that was the most prestigious title in wrestling.
The fact that the title is vacant doesn't really have anything to do with the ratings.There have been several periods where the title was vacant and the ratings were still through the roof.
ReplyDeleteAfter Austin lost it in 1998, after Vince won it and then voluntarily dropped it in 1999, etc.
People don't care who the champ is or if there even is a champ, so long as the angles and characters are interesting. Unfortunately, the angle has been fucked up, and Bryan is showing that his value as a top face draw really isn't that high.
Not on a WWE list.
ReplyDeleteI really want to scream about the DiBiases since I'm a mark for Ted Sr...but...I can't find a way to do it.
You think that the Von Erichs are the 2nd greatest family in WWE history?
ReplyDeletePeople are actually arguing that The McMahons are not The Greatest Family in WWE History?
ReplyDeleteWhy did they blur Earl's face?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wwe.com/f/styles/standard_list/public/t25/image/2012/05/rocky_dad_family.jpg
Good point. I was thinking 'pro wrestling history' not WWE history.
ReplyDeleteOf course, if it's just "WWE History" the Von Erichs shouldn't be on the list at all.
I think all three brothers and Fritz appeared on WWE cards at some point.
ReplyDeleteShane is of marginal importance? I dunno if I can agree with that. Shane may not be in the corporation anymore, but he's still been involved in some fantastic garbage matches. And doesn't HHH count as part of the family? Name a wrestling family more important to the WWE- purely from a wrestling standpoint- than HHH and Vince (the heel in the hottest wrestling angle ever), along with the owners of the Alliance. I'd probably go with the Harts as #1, but it's not a slam dunk at all.
ReplyDeleteI'd go Harts at 1, Rocky's at 2. (Cousins, Cousins everywhere!) McMahons at 3. Rhodes at 4. Von Erichs are kind of high. Was anyone other than Kerry even in the WWE? Rest of the list is fine.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Kerry as IC champ.
ReplyDeleteThe McMahons have owned the company for 50(?) years. I'd say that makes them the most important family.
ReplyDeleteBy definition, isn't any crew that has Punk and Bryan "smaller than usual"? HIYO!
ReplyDeleteSee what Dougie said below. I think he is right - some of the Von Erichs may have appeared on WW(W)F cards back when the territories were cooperating more, and would send guys on occasional tours of other territories.
ReplyDeleteI felt that was pretty obvious. I was just trying to point out that just because Kevin and David didn't have extended runs with the company, they certainly did some work there.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I have no problem with them being #1 on that particular list. You HAVE to count Vince's father and grandfather, even though neither was anywhere as active (in-ring, not overall) as Vince.
ReplyDeleteI also think if you're going 'pro wrestling history', guerreros and funks are right there with the harts.
ReplyDeleteIt's a fair point. People are thinking more in terms of actual wrestlers, which the McMahons obviously aren't. But yeah, once you look at it from that perspective they'd clearly be #1.
ReplyDeleteIf Linda managed to win the election? Maybe.
ReplyDeleteBo Dallas and Bray Wyatt are awful though.
ReplyDeleteYep. No argument there.
ReplyDeleteAnd what does an election have to do with WWE history?
ReplyDeleteNow THAT would've been an interesting feud...
ReplyDeleteVince's father, wife, son, daughter, and son in law are currently, or have been involved in running the most successful wrestling company that has ever existed. The company that defined, and continues to embody modern pro wrestling.
ReplyDeleteEven if you want to ignore the current generation, which I don't think you can, just Vince Sr and Jr are enough.
The Hart's churned out more in-ring talent, sure, but their overall importance is not more than the McMahon's.
And the list is WWE-centric, and therefore the McMahon's are indisputably number one, since there would BE no WWE without them.
I'm now with Dougie on this. They've owned the company for 50 years, which makes them the most important family in WWE history, regardless of how good they may or may not be as in-ring/on-camera characters.
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong.
ReplyDeleteEVERYTHING!
ReplyDelete(nothing, I honestly saw 15 Greatest Families and didn't think just WWE)
The Andersons would be up there in a ranking of kayfab families.
ReplyDeleteKevin and David definitely appeared on an MSG card or two back when cable was getting bigger and several NWA territory guys made one shot appearences in MSG as a result and Fritz was a headliner in the old WWWF in the 1960's.
ReplyDeleteNo love for the Armstrongs.
ReplyDeleteSteve was Lance Cassidy
ReplyDeleteI know WWE sued them for selling bootleg merch or some shit. Blurring him might just be a subtle "fuck you". Or if they have to pay him for his image, a less subtle "fuck you".
ReplyDeleteThey took the WWE thing rather lightly, I thought. The Von Erichs didn't do too much in the WWE other than Kerry being there for a bit.
ReplyDeleteTrue, and counting kayfab relatives the Von Erichs go down a few notches. DAMN was Lance bad.
ReplyDeleteAnother huge omission would be the Rodriguez family ( Albert Del Rio, Mil Mascaras, Dos Caras and El Sicodelico). There might even be a few more that I'm not sure about.
ReplyDeleteYeah they didn't get any love on that " Greatest Families " DVD years ago either.
ReplyDeletei dont think thats a blur, just maybe early happened to be moving his head right as the pic was taken
ReplyDeletedudleys?
ReplyDeleteIf we're talking about on-screen characters, then, yes, the McMahons as a unit probably don't rank as highly as all of the Harts or all of the Anoai's.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of overall contributions to the business, they're the almost inarguable #1 choice. Vince and Linda obviously built the company to the grand heights its at today, but don't discount Shane's contributions; he was the biggest part of them building their online presence and content, was a big part of forging new business relationships/partnerships with people that didn't want to deal with Vince, and (along with Russo) convinced his father to go in a more adult direction when things looked bleakest. He's a VERY overlooked part of WWE's success.
While I agree that the simple idea of "the title is held up", on it's own, isn't the reason for lower ratings, the overall story-line and WAY that that particular aspect has been handled certainly is.
ReplyDeleteWe've seen nothing new for almost two months - giving Bryan the belt, then taking it away, then giving it to him again, then taking it away again, doing two crap endings and dragging the feud out for a third match (which will likely have another crap ending)... it just isn't exciting.
Ooh, good point.
ReplyDeleteI havent read 1 comment or clicked the link, but if the McMahons aernt #1 ill poop out my moutj
ReplyDeleteEvery wrestler was "put" in the top spot by someone. Hulk by Vince, Flair by many, Austin by Vince, NWO by Bischoff, etc., because it's a simulated sport.
ReplyDeleteYes, Vince "put" himself and his family in tbat spot but they delivered BIG TIME yhe majority of the time. Vince is tbe greatest wrestling "character" ever, with the rest if the family having significant roles throughout wrestling history.
Where was the mention of the rest of the Windhams: Rotondo, Bray, and Bo?
ReplyDeleteEven if its the entire history of wrestling (not just) wwe its gotta be the McMahons at #1. I don't know who's #2 but the harts have 5 pretty major players.
ReplyDeleteYou've made some fine points in this thread dougie and actually enhanced the discussion. Especially your point about the funks and Guerrero's. In all honesty doesn't it feel better to participate?
ReplyDeleteI do it all the time, sweet pea.
ReplyDeleteWTF?! THE HEENAN FAMILY WAS ROBBED
ReplyDeleteAND LA FAMILIA TOO. WAY TO FUCK IT UP, WWE!
ReplyDelete