« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Author Topic: 2011 WWE Hall of Fame discussion  (Read 19929 times)

Playboy

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11315
  • If the bar ain't bending, you're just pretending
Re: 2011 WWE Hall of Fame discussion
« Reply #100 on: April 05, 2011, 06:03:06 AM »
Quote from: Montague on April 05, 2011, 05:41:13 AM

Heenan had my favorite induction speech of all time.
He certainly did. Blassie's was good too. Talked about how he got 1.00 for his first match in 1935. Wow...
Logged

Montague

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14614
  • The black degelation does not know this nig - V.G.
Re: 2011 WWE Hall of Fame discussion
« Reply #101 on: April 05, 2011, 06:20:52 AM »
Quote from: Playboy on April 05, 2011, 06:03:06 AM
He certainly did. Blassie's was good too. Talked about how he got 1.00 for his first match in 1935. Wow...


LOL!!
Now THAT is called paying dues!
Logged

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19253
  • Getbig!
Re: 2011 WWE Hall of Fame discussion
« Reply #102 on: April 05, 2011, 06:39:27 AM »
Quote from: cheftim on April 04, 2011, 09:25:59 PM
This was a great weekend. Tonight has been a great night of Wrestling as well. The HOF, RAW, and now Tough Enough with 3:16. Timmy was a complete goosebump when they showed the high light real of Michaels career. DX was cool. But that was just a small part of HBKs career. Too much HHH. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much HHH. They are not in the same league. I'm years tired of seeing him hump Shawns leg! I wish HHH would man up and admit it. Since HHH is always in Shawns spotlight. You know what he should have finally admitted tonight? THAT THERE WOULD BE NO HHH WITHOUT THE HEART BREAK KID SHAWN MICHAELS! I thought is was great that they showed that Janetty clip getting thrown through the window. HBK HOF. Arguably the best ever. Enough HHH already.

Has to be the worst entrance music in the history of the show.

Helmsley's resume is far more extensive: More World titles, became champion faster than Michaels did, He's been in more main-events at WrestleManias and he's WON more matches at 'Mania.

How does Michaels call himself "Mr. WrestleMania", when he's only won a third of his matches?

Yes, Michaels bought Helmsley to the spotlight. But, the Game has run with that spotlight. They're both great superstars, but I like Michaels' matches against Undertaker better.
Logged

Playboy

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11315
  • If the bar ain't bending, you're just pretending
Re: 2011 WWE Hall of Fame discussion
« Reply #103 on: April 05, 2011, 06:46:09 AM »
Quote from: MCWAY on April 05, 2011, 06:39:27 AM
Helmsley's resume is far more extensive: More World titles, became champion faster than Michaels did, He's been in more main-events at WrestleManias and he's WON more matches at 'Mania.

How does Michaels call himself "Mr. WrestleMania", when he's only won a third of his matches?

Yes, Michaels bought Helmsley to the spotlight. But, the Game has run with that spotlight. They're both great superstars, but I like Michaels' matches against Undertaker better.
Its not about "wins". Its about performance. In the end its just a storyline. Michaels delivered left, right and centre when it came to performance.

But Triple H has made a hardcore impact and ALL KINDS of $$$ in the WWE between 1999-2007 when he started slowing down a bit.
Logged

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19253
  • Getbig!
Re: 2011 WWE Hall of Fame discussion
« Reply #104 on: April 05, 2011, 07:07:38 AM »
Quote from: Playboy on April 05, 2011, 06:46:09 AM
Its not about "wins". Its about performance. In the end its just a storyline. Michaels delivered left, right and centre when it came to performance.

But Triple H has made a hardcore impact and ALL KINDS of $$$ in the WWE between 1999-2007 when he started slowing down a bit.

But, masterful performances ending in REPEATED LOSSES defeats the point somewhat. Michaels has been involved in "Match of the Year" multiple times. But, most of the time, he's been on the losing end: Razor, Diesel, Benoit, Angle, 'Taker (twice).
Logged

mass 04

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11039
Re: 2011 WWE Hall of Fame discussion
« Reply #105 on: April 05, 2011, 07:57:03 AM »
Quote from: Playboy on April 05, 2011, 04:57:46 AM
Did they even air the HOF on tv?
They showed snips from HBK, Drew Carey, and Animal and Ellerings speeches.
Logged

mass 04

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11039
Re: 2011 WWE Hall of Fame discussion
« Reply #106 on: April 05, 2011, 08:10:00 AM »
Quote from: MCWAY on April 05, 2011, 07:07:38 AM
But, masterful performances ending in REPEATED LOSSES defeats the point somewhat. Michaels has been involved in "Match of the Year" multiple times. But, most of the time, he's been on the losing end: Razor, Diesel, Benoit, Angle, 'Taker (twice).
He was pretty young when he was up against Diesel. He was so good in that match they had to turn him face the next night. The latter matches, no one cared about him winning or losing. He was at the point in his carrer much like Flair or Taker that nothing that he does diminishes his crediblity in the eyes of the fans. HHH was right is his promo, Shawn didn't care about winning, he cared about having the best match at the show.
Logged

Playboy

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11315
  • If the bar ain't bending, you're just pretending
Re: 2011 WWE Hall of Fame discussion
« Reply #107 on: April 05, 2011, 08:20:12 AM »
Wins & losses in wrestling mean absolutely nothing. Its about the performance. Wins and losses are only storyline and if you buy into it............
Logged

Ex Coelis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
Re: 2011 WWE Hall of Fame discussion
« Reply #108 on: April 05, 2011, 08:49:39 AM »
Al Snow's Head sadly overlooked for yet another year
Logged

Playboy

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11315
  • If the bar ain't bending, you're just pretending
Re: 2011 WWE Hall of Fame discussion
« Reply #109 on: April 05, 2011, 10:19:14 AM »
Ha ha ha ha ha
Logged

Montague

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14614
  • The black degelation does not know this nig - V.G.
Re: 2011 WWE Hall of Fame discussion
« Reply #110 on: April 06, 2011, 06:04:46 AM »
The April 4th airing of Saturday's WWE Hall Of Fame 2011 induction ceremony starring Shawn Michaels, scored a final cable rating of 2.36, according to Nielsen Media Research.
Logged

Playboy

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11315
  • If the bar ain't bending, you're just pretending
Re: 2011 WWE Hall of Fame discussion
« Reply #111 on: April 06, 2011, 06:57:51 AM »
Quote from: Montague on April 06, 2011, 06:04:46 AM
The April 4th airing of Saturday's WWE Hall Of Fame 2011 induction ceremony starring Shawn Michaels, scored a final cable rating of 2.36, according to Nielsen Media Research.

Is that good or bad?
Logged

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19253
  • Getbig!
Re: 2011 WWE Hall of Fame discussion
« Reply #112 on: April 06, 2011, 07:03:08 AM »
Quote from: Playboy on April 05, 2011, 08:20:12 AM
Wins & losses in wrestling mean absolutely nothing. Its about the performance. Wins and losses are only storyline and if you buy into it............

Then explain the Undertaker's streak.
Logged

Playboy

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11315
  • If the bar ain't bending, you're just pretending
Re: 2011 WWE Hall of Fame discussion
« Reply #113 on: April 06, 2011, 08:21:47 AM »
Quote from: MCWAY on April 06, 2011, 07:03:08 AM
Then explain the Undertaker's streak.
ITS A STORYLINE!
Logged

Montague

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14614
  • The black degelation does not know this nig - V.G.
Re: 2011 WWE Hall of Fame discussion
« Reply #114 on: April 12, 2011, 03:10:06 PM »
Quote from: Playboy on April 06, 2011, 06:57:51 AM
Is that good or bad?


I believe that RAW used to average 7-9 in the Nielsen's during the "Attitude Era."
But, you've got to factor in & compare it to what WWE programming usually draws these days, and that, I do not know.

My gripe with the Nielsen ratings is that it's only a representative sampling of audience/demographic.
The modems that track that info are only connected to TV's in a very small number of homes compared to the number of homes that actually have a TV.
Statistically, the sample audience is supposed to be an accurate/balanced representation of all viewers, but I question its reliability.

If you only use 25,000 trackers, but 99% of households (about 115 million) have a television, that gives a sample comprising less than 0.1% of viewers.
I simply think that is too small of a sample size to evenly represent ALL viewers.
JMO.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up
« previous next »