Wwe win/loss records for 2012

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 25, 2005
5,007
1,161
113
#1
was having a convo with the homie about how the wwe has become more of a free for all than ever (yeah yeah talking shit again..) and i came across this...made me laugh..maybe some of you will get a kick out of it also...

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.

What we see in WWE in terms of perceived hierarchy and the actual records of a wrestler are completely incompatible.

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.

Fans have a good reason to believe they feel he’s being shoved down their throats.

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?
 

ESFCE

Sicc OG
Dec 4, 2004
6,223
2,042
113
#3
No one cares or pays attention to win/loss records in wrestling anymore. Only stat nerds. It's an obvious fact now that a babyface is gonna have alot of wins, and when someone turns heel, they lose alot, and earn their biggest wins by cheating. You can't compare a legit competition like UFC to WWE. It's all character driven and not win driven anymore. Some wrestlers can also lose, and it doesn't hurt their image as an effective major face/heel. Look at Jericho, he came back to job to people, but shit he is still Chris Jericho, future Hall of Famer and one of the best in history.

I would like to see win/loss records for TNA wrestlers. One of the big things I like about them is that they acknowledge when one wrestler has had a rivalry or matchups in the past, and they hold wins/loses/ties to be something important. Just look at the Bound for Glory series....working your way up with a point system to be the #1 contender for the top PPV of the year.

But yeah I don't see why the writer of that article would waste time counting wins loses to make it seem like it's still important in WWE.
 
Feb 12, 2012
424
216
0
44
#4
you forgot Antonio Cesaro and Wade Barrett in your up and coming heels out of curiosity what are their records? I know Cesaro is 2 of Brodus Clay's 4 losses and he dominated both.
 
Feb 12, 2012
424
216
0
44
#6
its all good it was an interesting read just an old article, probably written before Cesaro's push and Barrett's return. Where is the article from?