Examining WWE Win/Loss Records Shows Big Problems
CM Punk is currently the WWE Champion.
Holding that title theoretically makes him the best fighter in all of WWE. He should be a guy who can destroy the majority of his opponents.
Only a select few on the roster should even be able to hang with him.
But Punk has a win/loss record of 22-17-5 this year.
“The Big Red Machine,” “The Devil’s Favorite Demon,” the man named Kane. We're told he's an unstoppable monster. He's 17-19-6.
If this were UFC, Punk and Kane would have been cut long ago. If this were baseball, Kane would be The Kansas City Royals.
Santino Marella literally has a better win/loss record than Kane.
Looking at WWE statistics over the course of the year (collected from James Caldwell at pwtorch.com) reveals other disturbing trends in the company.
Take a look at these babyface wrestlers:
- Ryback is 31-0.
- Brodus Clay is 31-2-1.
- Sin Cara is 20-4.
- Sheamus is 56-11-2.
It's inconsistent, and it hurts the perception of who is a big star.
Why is Brodus Clay not main-eventing by now? Why does Sin Cara have twice as many wins as the Intercontinental champion?
WWE has given us no answer. Title matches are rewarded in an inconsistent manner. This makes winning or losing a match often mean nothing.
Taking a look at the heel side of the win/loss record is even more depressing.
Alberto Del Rio, arguably the second biggest heel in WWE is 19-18-2.
The Big Show is 24-18.
Even if we ignore the stats of winning and losing, the overall number of times we've seen a wrestler should set off alarms.
As of Raw, we've seen Sheamus wrestle 69 times this year. 69! He's wrestled more than twice as much as John Cena has (who is actually a fairly unremarkable 17-6-7).
Sheamus has also won 25 matches in a row. Between him and Ryback, that’s 56 matches where the outcome is certain.
Even if the year ended right now, we’d still have seen Sheamus wrestle more than once a week. That’s an insane amount of times to see a guy deliver Brogue kicks, slap his chest and say the word arse.
Which wrestler has the most frustrating win/loss record?
What about upcoming heels? You know, the future of the company?
- Cody Rhodes is 15-35.
- The Miz is 9-32-1.
- Dolph Ziggler is 21-39-3.
- Jack Swagger is 9-31.
- And don’t forget that Brock Lesnar is 1-1.
WWE is doing long-term damage by having every heel on the roster be so completely ineffective.
Why should fans pay to watch Dolph Ziggler take on anyone when he is pushed as such a nonexistent threat?
Sure, smart fans will order the shows he’s on because he’s a fantastic athlete. But the average fan views him as the loser that WWE portrays him as.
Money is made when fans believe that their hero is in danger, but there is no heel in all of WWE that is pushed as a true threat.
They tried to make us believe that The Big Show was on the same level as Cena, but we’d seen many times in the past that it wasn’t true.
Adding in regular squash matches to the show would help alleviate this. It would give guys like Rhodes and Ziggler actual victories. It would make them look tough and make fans wonder what it would be like when they face off against the Ortons and Cenas of the world.
Instead we see those guys lose to bigger stars every week. It’s painfully predictable.
If WWE just paid more attention to who won and lost their matches, it would help out the company tremendously.
It would reward viewers who pay attention to match outcomes, title chases would make more sense and it would give every wrestler on the roster a greater sense of purpose.
If all it takes to make it on the WWE roster is having a 6–35 record (like Heath Slater) and still not be in danger of losing your job, where can I sign up?
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?