WWE Raw ratings for Jan. 16 show: Troubling trend continues
Say what you will about ratings and how much they mean to the business, but the current trend affecting WWE's flagship show, Monday Night Raw, is troubling to say the least.
The ratings are in for this past Monday's show (Jan. 16, 2012) and the rebound that was expected now that major football competition is gone wasn't nearly as good as was hoped for. PWTorch has the numbers:
WWE Raw on Monday, January 16 scored a 3.01 rating, up five percent compared to a 2.87 rating last week, but below a 3.10 rating for the 1-2-12 episode two weeks ago.
Raw averaged 4.29 million viewers, up seven percent from 4.00 million viewers last Monday up against the BCS National Title game. The first Monday of 2012 averaged 4.48 million viewers, four percent more than this week's Raw.
More important than those numbers is the troubling trend of losing viewers from the first hour to the second, which is typically something Raw never has happen. The first hour averaged 4.32 million viewers while the second dropped to 4.26. While many will see that and think it's no big deal, it most certainly shows an issue WWE is failing to address.
They can't keep their audience.
The History channel is dominating the Monday night television landscape and for good reason. Their programming, led by the smash hit Pawn Stars, has a much wider appeal than Raw. But the numbers show that interest is there for wrestling but it's not sustained enough for viewers to want to stick around.
For now, it's not a huge issue. But it can most certainly grow into one in a very short period of time, especially due to the fact that the rating didn't bounce back higher than it did now that football is over. If the turnaround doesn't happen soon, especially with the Royal Rumble just two weeks away and WrestleMania nearing ever closer, it's safe to wonder if the business has plateaued.
Now tell me why I might be overreacting, Cagesiders.
For complete Raw results and the running live blog click here. For all the reactions to the show click here.
41 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
That's really not that much of a drop off.
Isn’t it usually a much larger gap between the 2 hours’ ratings?
Isn’t it usually a much larger gap between the 2 hours’ ratings?
For most of WWE’s history, there wasn’t a drop between the two hours. The problem isn’t weather or not the drop is big or small, the problem is that the drop exists in the first place.
For most of WWE's history
you didn’t have that many options of what to watch on TV or being capable of streaming whatever shows/movies you want to see at the moment. I think you’re going to usually see a drop in numbers in the ratings between hours 1 and 2. For a weekly 2 hour show with plenty of replays for each program and clips on YouTube, you’re just not having a good chance at keeping your viewers watching for a full 2 hours.
For most of WWE’s history
This would only work if you ignore that one little era that did better business than any other era in pro wrestling, and sustained two nationally syndicated mega companies that both did great ratings despite there being hundreds of channels to watch on air, or movies to rent if nothing good was on the air.
I think you’re going to usually see a drop in numbers in the ratings between hours 1 and 2.
You don’t ever see a drop between hours one and two except for the past couple of weeks. It has literally never happened to WWE before for any sustained period of time, and this is something like the eight week that they’ve had less viewers in the second hour than the first.
For a weekly 2 hour show with plenty of replays for each program and clips on YouTube, you’re just not having a good chance at keeping your viewers watching for a full 2 hours.
WWE has always had plenty of replays for well over a decade now. Youtube has been around since 2005, and popular since at least 2007. In general, only the most media isolated people in the country don’t have good internet anymore, and since those people didn’t have cable in the first place, they don’t watch wrestling, and thus don’t count.
Yet this second hour drop as a consistent pattern has still never happened at any point in WWE’s history until the past eight weeks.
How many channels do you think existed in the late 90s?
You had HBO/Showtime and channesl like USA, TNT, and TBS, but there weren’t a ton of options. You still had basic cable channels which were mostly crap or syndicated shows (no good original programming in the primetime hours) and then the premium cable channels which weren’t airing their hit shows on Monday nights. Its not just the WWE dropping the ball that has caused them to go from 9.0-10.0 ratings down to the low 3s.
You don’t ever see a drop between hours one and two except for the past couple of weeks. It has literally never happened to WWE before for any sustained period of time, and this is something like the eight week that they’ve had less viewers in the second hour than the first.
I’ve been keeping up with the ratings through CSS. From what I remember of following this blog for the past few months or so, the ratings almost always take a dip in the second hour. If you have the numbers to disprove that, I’d be happy to see them.
I'll give you this, I was incorrect.
But just about the number of weeks WWE has had a second hour dip as a regular occurrence. Turns out, they’ve had it as a regularity for 23 weeks, not eight, but if you look at the ratings reports from Cageside itself, you’ll find that it was still an irregularity to see this kind of thing before that time period.
Here’s a report from November 7th, 2011.
Here’s another report from 2/21/11.
You still had basic cable channels which were mostly crap or syndicated shows (no good original programming in the primetime hours) and then the premium cable channels which weren’t airing their hit shows on Monday nights.
Basic cable channels are always mostly crap even today, and always come with relatively few channels. Your argument doesn’t hold up here because WWE airs on USA, a network which has always aired on basic cable, which has tons of hit shows to draw attention the other shows it airs: shows like Covert Affairs, Burn Notice, Royal Pains, and Suits all get fantastic ratings, much better ratings than RAW.
You would figure with all that star power behind their back, USA could find some way to get people to watch RAW if it was any good: but not only have RAW’s ratings steadily declined, the RAW where Zack Ryder took 10 minutes to change a fucking tire did worse numbers than the NCIS rerun that led into RAW.
It’s entirely WWE’s fault that their ratings have been tanking, don’t pretend otherwise.
You bring up shows like Burn Notice and Covert Affairs
Burn Notice is one of the top cable shows. Its a widely appealing show and I think we could both agree on that. This past year when it aired, it averaged 4.19 million viewers with a standard deviation of 1.09 million viewers. So basically you could expect anywhere between 3 and 5 million viewers on a weekly basis. Another hit show of USA’s, Psych, averaged 2.85 million viewers in the first half of this past season. Covert Affairs averaged 3.77 million viewers.
So why would one expect these shows that average the same amount of viewers as Raw or even less to greatly help Raw? They really don’t garner better ratings on a regular basis than Raw and definitely don’t have the consistency of drawing 4+ million viewers like Raw does. And when you look at the top basic cable episodes’ ratings, you usually see them peaking at a rare ~7 million viewers and usually more in the 5-6 million viewers range. These aren’t their weekly numbers nor do they have 52 episodes a year to air. Yet they aren’t labeled as failures by anyone and no one is expecting them to draw numbers like Seinfeld/Friends in the late 90s did.
This doesn’t paint the picture at all. Burn Notice loses about a million of its viewers every fall, but so does WWE, and WWE, as you can see from this link, doesn’t get anywhere near the viewers Burn Notice gets.
And if you look here, even though the numbers are deceitful, the 18 to 49 demos are the real deal, and you’ll find that WWE already does worse in the 18 to 49 demos than Royal Pains, Suits, and Burn Notice, and worse in the 25 to 54 demo than all those previous shows I mentioned, in addition to Covert Affairs, White Collar, and Necessary Roughness. Worse yet, on the January 9th edition of RAW, not only did neither hour of RAW even crack the top 10, but both hours were beaten by their lead in, an NCIS rerun of all fucking things.
Most importantly, pro wrestling has never, and will never get as good a sponsorship for the same ratings as any other show you could put on cable in its place. If USA finds that they can get just as good ratings, or even not as good ratings for running old NCIS episodes as they get for either hour of WWE, they will drop it, no questions about it.
Kids DO have a bed time
My theory is that since a lot of the audience are kids that most are made to go to bed around 10 p.m.
WWE always had a large audience of children, and yet this is the only time in their history they've had a second hour drop off as a stady pattern.
Saying that the kids are going off to bed for the second hour isn’t a valid excuse even slightly.
WWE's height of popularity with the tykes was during the Attitude Era.
In fact, it was also much more popular than it is now before the PG Era.
Kids don’t like forced corniness, the average male nine year old is even more bloodthirsty and judgmental than anyone post pubescence. Once WWE scaled back on that, the only kids they were left with were the children of old time wrestling fans who still haven’t given up on the product, for the rest, wrestling is seen as desperately uncool.
During the Atitude Era grown ups watched with their kid, so of course, dad would let me stay up late and watch it. Now its just for kids, mom walks in and tells the kid go to sleep.
by MVP Raiders on Jan 19, 2012 6:54 AM EST via Android app up reply actions
During the Attitude Era, male kids were specifically told that pro wrestling was dangerous to society.
Thus, they went out at every opportunity they could to seek it out. The adults kept in touch too because of the more mature content, but they never loved it the way the average pre and entering pubescence male did.
Nowadays, because it’s just for kids, while a few kids who are likely the children of wrestling fans still tune in, most kids let it pass them by because it’s seen as desperately uncool and nowhere near dangerous enough for their tastes. Not to mention, as much as I rag on the guy, Hulk Hogan had an appeal with children of all social dysfunctions and even adults that Cena is antithetic towards. You would never see a non WCW fan adult boo Hogan under any circumstances even today, and even when he came back in the death throes of the Attitude Era, he got pops from WWF fans of all colors, Cena has never done that.
the average male nine year old is even more bloodthirsty and judgmental than anyone post pubescence
Where in the hell do you get this stuff? I’ll give you credit for presenting some valid points and standing by your opinions, but some of the stuff you say is just WAY out there.
Have you ever met a male 9 year old?
More importantly, do you remember being a male 9 year old.
I sure as hell do. I was mean, judgmental, easily prone to violence, and loved action related anything, so pro wrestling became a huge interest. If a product intentionally presented itself as watered down, safe, or for kids, I wanted to avoid it and get on to finding epic displays of action, recklessness, and violence. Same with every other male 9 year old I knew at the time, or every other male 9 year old I’ve met before or since.
I’m not proud of who I was, but it doesn’t change facts.
I said it a couple weeks ago..
the business is dying. Its all in the numbers… the numbers don’t lie.. and WWe is doing any quick fix it can. It really started with Survivor Series.. and this week, people have to stop making excuses & look in the mirror. This was the lowest rated BCS game in history, I had a strong feeling the numbers wouldn’t get to where they were. WWe created this monster.. a monster where kayfabe was dead.. where everyone is used in a cookie cutter at FCW.. they streamlined the business.. and killed off individualism. What made them rich 15 yrs ago, is now killing them. They are on the low wave.. and the real fear should be that after Mania is over.. they will start to drop more.. hitting new lows… after all.. they will have used the Rock card.. and that will wear off.. they told us Rock was back to stay, yet since Nov, we haven’t seen or heard from him once. Even Jericho coming back hasn’t produced.. and with the WWe Network, we could be on the cusp of the death of WWE & sports entertainment… and ultimately, the rebirth of pro wrestling.
Suum Cuique
by Rawuncutnxrated on Jan 18, 2012 11:12 PM EST reply actions
Sadly, if WWE really does die, pro wrestling is finished.
If the biggest provider of a given sport goes belly up, no network head will ever want to carry anything related to it.
The business isn't dying
It is just stagnant. Even at these current numbers that people are critically analyzing, WWE still turns a huge profit. The famous Punk promo shows that interest is still out there. If WWE can just keep their interest, the numbers will improve.
I totally agree with your comment about being cookie cutter and killing off individualism.
by Manolo Has Pizzazz on Jan 19, 2012 12:04 AM EST up reply actions
Wonder why the first hour does better?
You’d think more people might tune in the second hour to see the main events than watch the beginnings, and then tune out. I guess that would be the casual “lets-see-whats-going-on-in-wrestling” people doing it, and they outnumber the check in at the end people.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!" Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
Ryder or Riot #WWWYKI
AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 458 posts (08/24/11)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest | 1st place- 2012 AAOP Contest
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Jan 18, 2012 11:13 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Wonder why the first hour does better?
No one gives a shit about seeing how things end because WWE’s weekly TV has been so shitty for so long. It’s not that complex.
People can tune into SD & see how the big angle ends. The rest is usually a diva’s match & some crap.
Suum Cuique
by Rawuncutnxrated on Jan 19, 2012 1:29 AM EST up reply actions
The ending of the show is supposed to be either the best match, or best promo, of the night.
The fact is, people have given up on WWE because they haven’t been delivering on what that second hour should represent.
And suppose your theory is true, if people are tuning into Smackdown to see how the big angle ends, why does Smackdown get such low ratings as compared to RAW, why does WWE still air important things in the second hour, and why has this never happened at any previous point in WWE’s existence?
There is a crossover effect… maybe those watching SD anyway.. say, hmmm, I can catch up on SD anyway.. I’m going to get to doing this or that.
As far as why in the 2nd hour.. because they’re still using the same business model as when it was looked at as 2 shows… “Monday Night Raw” & “Raw is War”.. They are not creating MUST SEE TV.. to steal NBC’s line.
Because times change, and as stated, WWe is stagnate… and they also painted themselves into corners.. they are such a big company.. and they care about what the non wrestling folks say.. that they bend their business to cater & kowtow to them. I believe that WWe is dying.. business is like a sine graph.. WWe is on the downside.. but when will it stop? Can they stop it.. stopping it is the start.. then they got to rebuild. Its not going to be a quick fix.. and if the WWe Network is a flop, it could sink the company for good.
The death of the WWe isn’t the end of prowrestling like you think it would be. It would be a rebirth period.. leveling the playing field all over. It would take a long while, but the PW biz could actually be in better shape.. since the overall monopoly would be gone.. again.. cyclic.. and going back to its roots.. with the Indy’s.
Suum Cuique
by Rawuncutnxrated on Jan 19, 2012 4:54 AM EST up reply actions
business is like a sine graph.. WWe is on the downside.. but when will it stop?
Ignoring you’r unnecessary ellipses, and ignoring the fact that ellipses should always be made up of three periods, business only make a rebound if they provide a necessary function to society. Sad as it may be, people don’t need professional wrestling to have a functioning society, or even just a fun society.
There’s a small chance some MMA guys will try to make money by staging worked fights for entertainment purposes, but business is already doing fine with just a few shoot fights rather than many fake ones, so there’s no incentive for the MMA promoters to work like that, and there’s almost no chance there ever will be.
It would take a long while, but the PW biz could actually be in better shape.. since the overall monopoly would be gone.. again.. cyclic.. and going back to its roots.. with the Indy’s.
You’re not really grasping the full implications.
Wrestling can’t afford to take a long hiatus. New fans need to get interested not just to generate money, but to bring in new wrestlers. All the world’s best, and even lower tier athletic talents make far more money for non worked sports that don’t demand the same sacrifice from their bodies. The only way to get them to change their mind is by making the pay so good that they’ll take the risk, which is now impossible thanks to the diminishing returns, or to breed new fans by creating a great product that is watched from far and wide, which is also impossible because with the failure of WWE and greater failure of TNA on USA and Spike, putting a pro wrestling show on nationally syndicated television is far less desirable than just about any other option available to network execs.
Most importantly, in order to become a great or even good pro wrestler, it’s important to work steadily with great and good pro wrestlers, guys who are ten and even twenty year vets of the business. The problem is, with the exception of a few oddballs out there, the only way someone would become a ten or twenty year pro wrestling vet is through good to great pay for a reliable company. Unless ROH becomes nationally syndicated, that won’t be an option anymore.
More proof ratings are bogus
4.3 million divided by the 50 States means only, we are averaging here, 86,000 people watch in each State. Hell the territories were doing 100,000 + in each of their CITIES. This is exactly why I can’t stand ratings as there is no way possible only 86,000 in a State watch Raw. If you try to accurately increase the figures for larger markets like New York and L.A. some states would be doing less viewers than 86,000 if any at all. Nielsen is a damn joke and in no way remotely accurate. More proof that 25,000 households is not an accurate sampling for the 114 million households they claim watch TV. Ok I’m done rambling now.
I agree with you that the Neilsen numbers are flawed, but not for that reason.
If you go back and look at every previous year and decade from this point, more people watched pro wrestling in every previous year and decade compared to today. Pro wrestling is less popular now than at any previous point in history, so it’s obvious the numbers would reflect that.
Not to mention, what makes you think an equal number of people watch in each state? The Neilsen’s never said that.
Actually I don't think an equal number watch in all 50 states.
If you notice I said “we are averaging here” meaning I was simplifying the viewership between all 50 states. I also mention when you account for larger markets some states would be lower and possibly contain no viewers at all. My point is that whether it is less popular or not the numbers are seriously flawed and low. I Broke down that 4.3 million to a level that shows it’s ridiculous because someone is watching in every city and every state and some states are far larger than others. No matter the popularity level of wrestling, the numbers are wrong and considering all the other sites that have addressed the flaws with Nielsen we as fans just can’t take them seriously/ The Nielsen sample size has never changed yet the population has grown drastically over the last 40 to 50 years, wouldn’t that also account for the drop in numbers over the years?
The Nielsen sample size has never changed yet the population has grown drastically over the last 40 to 50 years, wouldn’t that also account for the drop in numbers over the years?
Not even close. As flawed as the method is, Neilsen re-estimates the number of TV equiped households every August of every year. More importantly, they also break down the numbers that each TV show gets in each demo, which is why shows like the Office and Glee generate more commercial money than shows like NCIS, which get higher ratings, because the Office and Glee get more viewers in the 18-49 demo, a demo which generally has far more disposable income, far less discretion, and likes to stay up later and thus party more, than those under 18 or over 49.
Not to mention that you have yet to take into account that wrestling is far less popular in 2012 than any previous year of its existence.
The numbers may not be perfect, but they’re still a rather good indication of where WWE falls in popularity, and the answer is low.
NBC’s Alan Wurtzel – “Ratings are a currency, so they’re just as important now as they were ten years ago. It’s how we get paid. But in this new media environment, do these numbers reflect accurately how many people are viewing this content? The answer is no.” As viewing habits become more fractured, and viewers become less bound to TV schedules, Wurtzel says, the current ratings system’s focus on live and recently recorded TV will become a problem. "Are we happy with the way we’re following technology and being able to measure it? No. We’re way behind. "
You’re also missing the boat on demos and shows in general and what matters to the networks and advertisers. Advertisers and networks look at commercial ratings meaning those that do not channel flip during commercials which is why some lower rated shows have higher ad rates, Kennel club for example, than than those with a higher viewership. There is far more to it than the press saying a show did such and such rating. There was a reason that the networks fought to make it illegal for people to record TV shows with VCR’s and stuff that automatically skipped commercials which was their main focus and not copyrighted material. The ratings we receive are inaccurate and in no way represent how many truly watch a show and add to that the fact Nielsen become a monopoly and has blocked any upstarts from competing with them in recent years, we will never have a better accounting system. I will be the first to state that wrestling was more popular on a national level in the past, I’m 44 and went to my first match in 1972 here in STL so I’ve seen the ups and downs in the business all these years but I also recall going to the Kiel and the Arena and seeing a few hundred people in a 10,000 seat arena for WCW when Flair fought Muta and WWE doing just as bad ranging around 2,000 in a 18,000 seat arena in the early 90’s so no it’s not at an all time low in popularity. If they randomly chose who is a Nielsen family the numbers would change and if they would increase the sample size to at least one percent, hell a half a percent but we’re below .1 percent sample size so no I’m standing by the fact they are in no way accurate and not representative of anything except the commercial rating which can be accounted for by someone not flipping to grab a snack or go to the bathroom opposed to loving a show so much they don’t change the channel. The whole system is flawed under Nielsen and their top secret formula for calculating that even the networks don’t agree with but it’s how they get paid so they have to go with it.
The whole system is flawed under Nielsen and their top secret formula for calculating that even the networks don’t agree with but it’s how they get paid so they have to go with it.
This would have some merit to it, but considering that the merch sales are down, the buyrates are down, the house show sales are down, and the PPV and TV live gates are down, the Neilsen ratings aren’t flawed in terms of calculating WWE’s popularity. Hell, they probably paint a better picture than things actually are.
By Mcmahon in Nov. 11-" Despite the challenging economic headwinds, both domestically and abroad, we generated increased profits across a majority of our businesses, with the main exception being our film business which we continue to monitor and refine to improve future performance."
PPV’s are down due to illegal streams not lack of popularity. Go pull up streams on the next PPV, their are hundreds of them, look at the number of viewers which are always well over 1000 on each site showing the same feeds and you have the loss of well over 30,000 PPV buyers accounted for. ESPN just said Cena is over 100 million in retail value, Punks shirts are outselling Cena’s at times, the pricing of events in these difficult economic times explains the drop in attendance with ticket prices increasing and your average families, being the main ones who go to these events, simply cannot afford it. The DVD’s for the most part suck and why buy when they are often pirated online before they are even in stores. You aren’t accounting for the obvious reasons why revenue is less than 10 years ago when stating popularity is down, only pointing to a flawed system that is lower than .025 percent of the viewing population. It only says that those who fit “Nielsens specific criteria” have found other things to watch. . You cannot judge popularity based on a Nielsen audience that is not random, it has specific criteria in choosing who gets a box, that’s a specialized audience and not the general public so sorry it does not paint a picture of how things are. Go grab the raw streams online as those aren’t figured into ratings and add up the counts…people have found ways to watch shows for free in places that Nielsen does not account for again making them bogus and innaccurate.
PPV’s are down due to illegal streams not lack of popularity.
If this were any sort of viable excuse, UFC wouldn’t have had three PPV’s that did over one million buys in 2010, nor would it be true that 11 UFC PPV’s in 2010 did better domestic numbers than any WWE PPV worldwide number this year or the previous except for Wrestlemania since the 2006 Royal Rumble.
" Despite the challenging economic headwinds, both domestically and abroad, we generated increased profits across a majority of our businesses, with the main exception being our film business which we continue to monitor and refine to improve future performance."
Aside from the fact that you’re listing a quote from the company chairman, which contains no numbers of any kind, as a source, you’re not keeping in mind what he’s saying.
Vince didn’t say they’re generating a lot of money, he said that WWE is “more profitable.” This is largely because of the large amount of cost cutting WWE has done in the past several years, such as cutting pyro out of shows, cutting out PPV sets, having less celebrities on TV, and cutting out the recap videos they used to show at the end of their PPV’s. Not to mention the fact that most of WWE’s top paid guys are now either dead, retired, or retiring, with only Cena, Punk, and Orton replacing high paid guys like Eddie Guerrero, Kurt Angle, Shawn Michaels, Edge, Chris Benoit, JBL, RVD, Tommy Dreamer, Jeff Hardy, etc. Not to mention the effectively retired guys like Mysterio, Undertaker, and Jericho.
WWE has failed miserably at getting new superstars over for years now. They basically have 3 stars right now (Cena, Orton, Punk) and then a whole bunch of dudes that many people don’t give a crap about. What stars has Cena made besides helping Punk last summer? WWE’s booking is mostly boring and stagnant, especially over the last few years, and as a result they have a roster full of talented guys that nobody cares about.
Things were looking pretty good last summer when Punk and Cena were heading to MITB. But even that PPV buyrate didn’t reflect how compelling the story was. That’s because there isn’t a quick fix to this problem and I don’t know if WWE really understands that. They can’t be super-sensitive to the ratings on a week-to-week basis and change booking plans due to solely those numbers. Their ratings and buyrates (aside from Mania) are going to suck for a while no matter what they do. Bringing back Taker or HHH or Rock for an occasional match won’t fix it either. WWE either needs to focus on long-term high quality booking or they need to find the next huge superstar again. Cena isn’t that guy that is going to make wrestling cool again. In fact he is probably one of the reasons that wrestling is not cool right now.
There isn’t a quick fix to this. But WWE is too shortsighted to do the right thing. I don’t really see this changing anytime soon.
There's always a built-in audience that will get RAW to 2.7
After that, it depends on how compelling the show is. Unfortunately, WWE has the characters (though they could do better at differentiating them) but not the story arcs. People like story arcs. If RAW is such an “episodic” show, how come most of the episodes feel like bottle eps that don’t do anything to advance storylines?
Vince needs to go back to planning the year in advance and then he should just stick to his damn guns. You don’t see other TV shows dropping storylines midseason based on the quarter hour ratings.
Sadly, Vince just needs to step down period.
It’s been a decade since he last booked a compelling storyline. Every good storyline WWE has had in the past 10 years has been the work of veterans who had enough clout to bully the company into booking their ideas. Guys like Triple H, JBL, Kurt Angle, Eddie Guerrero, Chris Benoit, Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Paul Heyman, Edge, and Chris Jericho.
Of those ten guys, one works once a year, two are dead, two are never returning to WWE, three are retired. Two of those guys (Triple H, Chris Jericho) will likely take over the company, but are almost finished with their wrestling careers. The only full timers who have replaced these ten are John Cena, Randy Orton, and CM Punk, and Cena doesn’t count because his views on storylines are either apathetic, or noxious to the company. The audience doesn’t see Punk and Orton on the level of the ten guys I mentioned, and they have nothing but contempt for Cena.
Without a new leader at the helm, WWE is finished. Triple H might be the guy, or he might not, but at least he’d be less damaging than Vince has been.
y'all remember random masked men
the champs and mid carders used to squash on every house show or Tv show? how much heat did that save. now you have ppl booked to the ground months or years at times makes it hard yo take um serious if all the sudden wwe says there the best. just a thought
He knows the guy with the bandage on his ass is going no were. Were you going fucking no were
by Elstriko on Jan 19, 2012 11:20 AM EST via Android app reply actions

by 
















