How important is drawing power?

On last night's v2 Wrestling Podcast we had an interesting discussion about whether drawing power should be taking into account when rating wrestlers.

For example, it's difficult to consider Hulk Hogan a great wrestler in many regards, yet he's considered a legend due to the amount of business he generated. On the other hand, Kurt Angle is much more talented in most categories, but was never a big draw.

How much stock do you put in drawing power when assessing a wrestler? Can a wrestler be great without drawing money? Would Hogan still be anywhere near legendary status if it hadn't been for the money he generated?

You can listen to the show at http://v2wrestling.podomatic.com/entry/2014-03-20T11_52_27-07_00 - the conversation begins when we get to Adam's Room 619 nomination.

I haven't had the opportunity to listen to the podcast as of yet but I'd say it's pretty impossible to overlook drawing power, as a spectator I want to see the best show possible and generally I feel thats down to how the crowd react to certain Wrestlers and matches, you can have two of the best wrestlers in the land having a great match but if the crowd aren't interested then I find it harder to invest too, guys like Hogan weren't great in the ring, he wasn't bad to be fair, he could work but that style wasn't conducive to what Vince McMahon was selling.

Drawing power is huge, whether the big face is loved or loathed their presence creates that tension among the crowd, they either want him to win or lose, they care, the bigger the match the bigger the atmosphere and that in turn helps elevate a match, I've long said id rather watch a 3 star match in front of a 5 star crowd rather than vice versa, very seldom you'll get a 5 star crowd if you don't have that big draw in that particular match.

My comment was more to do with not th crowd by the judging of a star by ppv hits.

For example, the crowd post mania was 'immense' - does hat make fandango th biggest star of the last 10 years?

If wrestling as a whole is in a dip, should that reflect on how good someone was?

My example was that of Kurt angle not being a draw. His feud with stone cold over the affections of Vince were some of my favorites but at th time, the wrestling wars had already been own and ppv buys suffered. Does that mean that artistically, because the audience was smaller, that Kurt doesn't deserve to be recognised as a great?

To me, wrestling ppv buys are important but if the quality is here for all to see, but not reflected in buys, it's irrelevant.

It's like Barcelona playing in the Scottish division. They would be still th best team but no one would want to see it because they are playing partick thistle. Still the greatest though.

As I said on the podcast, the Barcelona comparison is ridiculous, because they could win the Scottish league and then go on to win the champions league twenty years in a row, and thus they would get that recognition as the greatest team ever.

Also, there is no evidence to suggest Fandango is, or ever has been, a draw.

How do we assess drawing power? Is it by the main event? In that case do tag-teams rarely draw? Surely the Dudleyz/E&C/Hardyz fued drew some big money for the E even though the rarely (if ever?) main evented.

I also had a look through the PPV buyrates over the years and it seems The Undertaker didn't draw too well as champion. But the again he always seemed to be given the belt when times were bad for the WWE and the build to the main event for Wrestlemania 13 was a little messy with the match subsequently being very poor.

Eddie Guerrero and Kurt Angle never seemed to draw much either despite being seemingly popular especially with the IWC. JBL another poor draw but I seem to remember his title reign fondly. Perhaps he was a victim of the brand split for PPVs? HHH only drew if he was put against the right competitor. Surpirsingly CM Punk doesn't seem to draw too well either. Only 300k buys for his SummerSlam showdown with Cena in 2011 which the the worst number in over 10 years.

In answer to the question, I think drawing power is very important when assessing a wrestler's standing in history. It's probably what seperates guys like Hogan, Austin, The Rock, Cena from the rest. It makes them one of the greatest rather than just great.

There are so many factors, you're right. I think it's easier to definitively say that certain people were draws at certain times than saying who wasn't.

Punk has not proved himself to be a draw, but then again he was rarely put in a position to draw, ie as the centrepiece of a promotion. In some ways The Undertaker is the same; he was never the top guy. His streak has only drawn in recent years because of the aura that has been built around it. You could argue that any wrestler would draw if they were defending a 23-year unbeaten streak.

In some ways you can say draw is the only factor when it comes to assessing a wrestlers worth, given that the entire purpose of pro wrestling in it's worked form is to create stars who will draw fans to a show.

That said personally when I think about my favourite and greatest wrestlers, the thought of who draws money never enters my head.

I think liverbnz and House have both hit nails on the head. The power to be a draw is what takes a guy from being great to legend. BUT at the same time some of my favourite guys couldnt be considered big draws. Not yet anyway.