Skip to main content

WWE Network

WWE Network seems to have been free quite a lot this year, how long can Vince and Co© keep this thing alive with it making no money 65% of the time? Also before investors realise the figures are inflated by these offers and that the 1m PAYING subscribers is still a way off?

​I feel like they'll let it play out and see where it goes.  ​


  1. Yeah, the Warrior inclusion confused me too, especially when he didn't crack the top 10 last year despite being world champion.

  2. Awesome. Enjoy reading these. Takes me back

  3. These are the noteworthy win-loss-draw records for 1992 according to Solie:

    Steiner Brothers 66-14-2
    Chris Chavis 65-4-0
    Brett Hart 65-9-0
    Undertaker 55-4-0
    Ron Simmons 53-3-0
    Natural Disasters 53-23-0
    Rhodes/Steamboat 51-31-1
    Randy Savage 51-15-0
    Rick Rude 49-21-0
    Shawn Michaels 48-22-0
    Davey Boy Smith 45-6-1
    Rick Martell 45-31-2
    Crush 44-0-0
    Sting 42-13-0
    LOD 40-4-0
    Tito Santana 40-28-10
    Ultimate Warrior 37-1-0
    Virgil 34-49-0
    Johnny B. Badd 33-9-1
    Repo Man 31-52-0
    Big Boss Man 30-14-0
    Barry Windham 30-13-5
    Nasty Boys 30-29-0
    Windham/Rhodes 29-6-0
    Dustin Rhodes 28-12-3
    Ricky Steamboat 22-22-2

  4. Perhaps if Brian Christopher were Just the Right Amount of Sexy he could have done even more in wrestling. Sad that Brian probably got a push from his dad so Jerry could meet girls.

  5. Jimmy Hart's airbrush guy made some serious money in the 90s.

  6. 1992 was such an excellent year for both big companies.

  7. Why so few matches?

    Did WWF & WCW really cut back on house shows that much?

    Seth Rollins has wrestled 20 times this year already in comparison.

  8. I could be wrong, but they might base that off just television appearances?

  9. I think Solie also covers houseshows too.

  10. Yeah, that would surely make sense as some of these guys wrestled 70+ times. Interesting stats.

  11. Crikey Mate Down Under AussieFebruary 2, 2015 at 9:37 AM

    The year I was born!

  12. I know people shit on Malenko's #1 spot in the PWI 500, but the guy probably deserved it. I kept a spreadsheet of all the wins and losses that year and up until the summer of 1997, Malenko not only wrestled more matches than anyone else, but he won more matches too. Of course after he lost the US title, he pissed Bischoff off and got turned into a jobber because reasons.

  13. I wouldn't say shitting, but when you use kayfabe justification for Hulk and DIESEL as #1's, then in 1997 you say Dean Malenko, on in 2002 RVD (really? RVD?!!), it seems like you're catering to the smark audience, instead of the rules you've applied in years past. Malenko was no doubt a top talent, but Summer 1996-Spring 1997 WCW was the year of Hulk and the n.W.o., not Dean Malenko.

  14. I believe the PWI 500 is mostly judged by kayfabe wins and achievements and I've never really had a problem with the guys they picked for the #1 spot. I don't have a problem with Hulk or Diesel being #1 because they always seemed to be on tv winning matches. And while Hulk and the nWo were the stars of 1997, they weren't really booked like stars as it seemed they lost the majority of the matches by DQ and if they did win, it was usually by screwjob.

    And I don't have a problem RVD being the #1 guy since it seemed RVD was the main workhorse guy for Aug 2001-July 2002. Plus 2002 was a pretty weak year for building up stars anyway.

  15. I was never into the PWI 500 as anything more than "how did they come up with this" puzzlement. Sometimes it felt they used kayfabe justification, and then years where Dean Malenko gets #1, it's obviously from workrate "smart crowd" arguments. I always liked digging deep for random names, like Warrior being in the 1995 ranking for working all of one match (with Honkytonk Man at a NWC show in Las Vegas) at 320 or something in that neighborhood

  16. That cover is the closest Rick Steiner ever came to the main event.


Post a Comment