Message-ID: 

"Mark Rosendorf"  wrote:
| "Hack-Man"  wrote in message
| news:0fum2vg2uf64tsb26q3p396mlnv0q9nr7n{at}4ax.com...
| 
| > TOTAL MATCH RATINGS: $19.55
| >
| > TOTAL SKIT RATING: $0.00
| >
| > TOTAL PPV RATING: $19.55
| >
| > WWE price of the PPV: $34.99.  By that measure, I didn't my money's
| > worth.
| 
| If you don't mind my pointing out, I don't remember a PPV where you felt you
| DID get your money's worth. Is it possible that maybe your rating chart is
| so low that no PPV will ever have a chance??

The most recent WrestleMania got a rating of $36.40 (I don't
remember what the WWF charged for it).  The very last WCW SuperBrawl
PPV got rated at $37.60 (was this back when PPVs were $25?).  And
then there's the PPV that everyone gets on my case about :-) WCW
Halloween Havoc 1998 that I gave a rating of $49.50 for.

It's quite possible that wrestling *hasn't* gone downhill over the
last year or two and that I'm just getting more and more jaded, but
I guess the ratings & buyrate don't support that.


| Frankly, I felt the Benoit/Angle match and the Rumble itself was worth the
| price alone.

I actually stopped to think about this last night after reading
several people's comments that "this match was worth the $35 all by
itself.  I asked myself "if they put *just* this one match on a DVD
and the price was $35, would I buy the DVD?  I decided the answer
was "no".  If they had three matches of this quality, put them on a
DVD, and put the price at $30, I'd have no problem buying it,
though.


| Apparently, you liked the Benoit/Angle match too, you rated it 10
| dollars...the highest I've ever seen you rate a match...but even then, based
| on the scale, the PPV had no chance of being rated "Worth the money".
| 
| Another consideration - since you rate each match separately, (and since the
| Rumble takes up more then an hour, it fills the comparison of 3 or 4
| matches), wouldn't a PPV with MORE matches do better on your ratings then
| one like the Rumble which only has 6 matches?

Only if the PPV were longer (say a 4-hour PPV instead of the
standard 2 hour 45 minute fare).  Short matches generally don't do
much for me--and that will usually show up in the ratings.  Long
matches that are good (see: Benoit/Angle) will do better than both
(1) long matches that aren't good (HHH/BPP) and (2) short matches
that weren't given enough time (previous shorter matches with
Benoit, Eddie, Angle, etc).


| Think about it - a PPV with 12 matches all under 10 minutes, by the law of
| averages would do much better then a PPV with 5 matches when one goes an
| hour and is a match of the year candidate.

Maybe with someone else's rating system it would.  Most "under ten
minute" matches get a rating of less than a buck from me, as they
don't have time to tell a story in the ring.  If Benoit and Angle
were put in a one-hour iron man match at the next PPV (unlikely,
since they'll be building the Brock/Angle storyline towards
WrestleMania) I could easily see it being worth $25 to $35 for the
one match alone.  If they put a second iron man math (say between
RVD and Jerry Lynn or Eddie vs Chavo vs Rey) they could have the
first ever $60 PPV... all with only two matches!  90% of their
viewers would probably hate it, but I'd mark out like never before.


| Just food for thought, otherwise, I enjoy reading your reviews after PPV's.
| 
| Mark

Thanks for the comments.  Hope I was able to clear up any
misconceptions you (or anyone else) might have had.


         SPAMguard: add a dash between "Hack" and "Man"
to send me email
-- 
RSPW's most long-lasting poster
Voted "Most On-Topic Poster" in the 2002 RSPW Poster Awards
rspw{at}HackMan.com    Video/C/Unix geek      http://Hack-Man.com/Wrestling


--- Internet Rex 2.29