Okay, I get the basic idea of what it is supposed to be: it's the one person, or two people, who gets you to buy an event. In movies, there are the marquee names, meaning those usually listed before the movie's title. In many TV shows, it's easy to see who the "draw" is, since they usually have the lead role and the overwhelming majority of scenes.
The problem is that the idea actually doesn't translate well in pro wrestling. You'd figure that the "draw" would be the "world champion", right? After all, doesn't the belt mean that they are supposed to be the best? But if that's the case, then how is it that there are all these other "main event matches" on PPV (especially on WWE PPVs) where non-champion wrestlers are being held up as being equal in importance to the champion.
It seemed to start back with Hulk Hogan back at Wrestlemania VIII. Hogan was no longer the champion, but he refused to be anything but the main event of the card. As such, McMahon had to claim that there were two "co-main event matches", those being Hogan-Sid and the Flair-Savage title match. Lately, we have gotten to the point where there are as many as FOUR "main event matches".
That brings me back to my original question: what is a "draw", since the plethora of main events clouds the issue of just who is attracting the crowds.
It certainly isn't who sells the most merchandise; there are plenty of top-sellers of merchandise that the WWE does not seem interested in pushing.
I remember seeing a clip from a wrestling class that Al Snow did, where Snow said that the "best" match of Wrestlemania was not Steamboat-Savage, but Hogan-Andre. Why? Because that was the main event, so that was what people paid to see. (Myself, I just don't see declaring that since a main-eventer could just phone-in a performance while someone on the "undercard" worked his ass off to entertain and to work.)
So.. does anyone have any observations or opinions to share?
The problem is that the idea actually doesn't translate well in pro wrestling. You'd figure that the "draw" would be the "world champion", right? After all, doesn't the belt mean that they are supposed to be the best? But if that's the case, then how is it that there are all these other "main event matches" on PPV (especially on WWE PPVs) where non-champion wrestlers are being held up as being equal in importance to the champion.
It seemed to start back with Hulk Hogan back at Wrestlemania VIII. Hogan was no longer the champion, but he refused to be anything but the main event of the card. As such, McMahon had to claim that there were two "co-main event matches", those being Hogan-Sid and the Flair-Savage title match. Lately, we have gotten to the point where there are as many as FOUR "main event matches".
That brings me back to my original question: what is a "draw", since the plethora of main events clouds the issue of just who is attracting the crowds.
It certainly isn't who sells the most merchandise; there are plenty of top-sellers of merchandise that the WWE does not seem interested in pushing.
I remember seeing a clip from a wrestling class that Al Snow did, where Snow said that the "best" match of Wrestlemania was not Steamboat-Savage, but Hogan-Andre. Why? Because that was the main event, so that was what people paid to see. (Myself, I just don't see declaring that since a main-eventer could just phone-in a performance while someone on the "undercard" worked his ass off to entertain and to work.)
So.. does anyone have any observations or opinions to share?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire