WWE PPV buyrates, Sky Box Office buys/viewing rates?

Butch Cassidy

Are there figures out there available for WWE PPV buys and ratings for UK & Ireland?

I'm curious to know if their views for PPVs have gone up or down since the move to Box Office.

Charisteas

Are all the PPV's now on Sky Box Office?

I havn't had Sky for four years, but I remember when they were all free, and I think even Channel 4 had some in 2000.

Diabhal Beag

Less people will watch something they have to pay for. I would be suprised if one of the other minor PPV's didn't lose a lot of viewers in the UK and Ireland.

The Volt

a PPV price thread? Here we go again :pac:

D2D

I don't think they give out the numbers. I think they add the number to the international buyrate but the actual figure is never released

Butch Cassidy

Voltwad wrote: »

a PPV price thread? Here we go again :pac:

What?
I didn't question the price anywhere in the op.

Dare_2_defy wrote: »

I don't think they give out the numbers. I think they add the number to the international buyrate but the actual figure is never released

Cheers.

Rjd2

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

What?
I didn't question the price anywhere in the op.



Cheers.

Butch, Voltwad meant no harm to you:)


If I recall one of his first posts here was asking about wwe ppv prices, he was banned instantly. :pac: Its a story he tells quite often here, and it amuses us all. It was just a reference to that and it wasn't meant to derail this thread.

waltersobchak

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

What?
I didn't question the price anywhere in the op.

Its only a running joke about Voltwad getting into trouble..

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055530011&highlight=prices

The Volt

montreal screwjob aint got nothing on this! no offence meant man it just brings back some smelly memories

jaykhunter

From PileDriverwrestling.net :

EXCLUSIVE: Some more figures available for Extreme Rules. As previously reported: the show pulled 178,000 worldwide buys (103 domestic). In the UK, the live broadcast on Sky Sports attracted 162,000 viewers on the first run, with an additional 75,000 watching the first replay.
Over The Limit (which aired on Sky Box Office) attracted less than 6,000 buys for the live broadcast. Wrestlemania drew almost 70,000 buys

I mod for this site (their main site is being relaunched), they're very meticulous about fact-checking and reports, I trust them implicitly. Two of the guys on their team are journalists by trade.

D2D

From JayK's post above mine

Over The Limit (which aired on Sky Box Office) attracted less than 6,000 buys for the live broadcast.

Jesus, is that a record??

jaykhunter

Dare_2_defy wrote: »

Jesus, is that a record??

It'd have to be one of the lowest of all time, contending with D2D (not you, Dec to Dismember!) and some of the other sh1tstorms over the years! Was Fatal 4 Way free or SBO?

waltersobchak

jaykhunter wrote: »

It'd have to be one of the lowest of all time, contending with D2D (not you, Dec to Dismember!) and some of the other sh1tstorms over the years! Was Fatal 4 Way free or SBO?

December to Dismember was a free to air PPV, but if it wasnt i cant imagine it getting many buys, to be honest British and Irish wrestling fans are so used to free PPV's that buying anything other than the big 4 isnt too likely especially these days, with the gimmick PPVs

D2D

jaykhunter wrote: »

It'd have to be one of the lowest of all time, contending with D2D (not you, Dec to Dismember!) and some of the other sh1tstorms over the years! Was Fatal 4 Way free or SBO?

Wasn't Dec to Dis on Sky Sports?? If it was on SBO, The reason that'd be down would be because it was the 2nd PPV on SBO in 4 weeks (Survivor Series, Dec to Dis and Armageddon). That and the fact that D2D (not me:pac: )was pure ****

Oh and F4W was on Sky Sports:)

Wolfe Tone

I buy 3 ppvs a year. Summerslam, WM, Rumble. The rest I ether just read the results of or watch on the net.

D2D

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I buy 3 ppvs a year. Summerslam, WM, Rumble. The rest I ether just read the results of or watch on the net.

I don't buy any:o:o

If there on Sky Sports, I'd neither record them if I wrecked or watch them live but if there on SBO, I'd just watch them on the net.

I'd normally buy them when they come out on DVD/Blu Ray as well.

Wolfe Tone

Dare_2_defy wrote: »

I don't buy any:o:o

If there on Sky Sports, I'd neither record them if I wrecked or watch them live but if there on SBO, I'd just watch them on the net.

I'd normally buy them when they come out on DVD/Blu Ray as well.

Ahh, me and my mates go to someones house for each and have a bit of a piss up, hammered by the main event haha

D2D

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Ahh, me and my mates go to someones house for each and have a bit of a piss up, hammered by the main event haha

Wolfe Tone

If I was arsed I would find some funny picture pointing out that your attempt to be funny has failed miserably.


Thanks for that by the way.

D2D

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

If I was arsed I would find some funny picture pointing out that your attempt to be funny has failed miserably.


Thanks for that by the way.

Ah, it's just a joke.

Butch Cassidy

jaykhunter wrote: »

From PileDriverwrestling.net :



I mod for this site (their main site is being relaunched), they're very meticulous about fact-checking and reports, I trust them implicitly. Two of the guys on their team are journalists by trade.

Really is that right ? :eek:
200,000+ for a PPV on Sky Sports and a measly 6,000 for a Box Office PPV ? Wow. Thanks a million for the figures, this is the kinda stuff I was after.

It makes you wonder: Why the hell are they carrying on with the Box Office charade?

I'd love to see the figures over a period of 10 or 12 years say from 1999-present. Does it still work out profitable for Sky to run a show on Box Office even though a similar show on Sky sports could get them a helluva lot more views?


Or does views of a PPV on a channel at 1AM with no ads not making them any money? With UFC on the old WWF/Sky Sports model of a once off subscription getting you the live PPVs you gotta wonder what the thinking is. Surely they'd want as many people watching a show even if it was on Sky Sports?

Is whatever meagre number of PPVs on Sky Sports even an incentive at all to purchase the Sports package? RAW and Smackdown aside I suppose.

waltersobchak wrote: »

to be honest British and Irish wrestling fans are so used to free PPV's that buying anything other than the big 4 isnt too likely especially these days, with the gimmick PPVs

This is what I was going to bring up as well. Surely it's the case that British/Irish used to be used to PPVs being in the Sky Sports package? ie. not at extra score on Cox Office.


One Night Only and the UK PPVs aside, Royal Rumble 2002 was the first on Box Office. It was the fallout from the WWF/Ch4 deal that led to a few of them going to pay-per-view/box office. I can only assume that they must've seen the benefits of this and thought "hey, they're actually paying for watching the live events, might as well start charging for more". And they of course have been charging for more and more of them over the years.

I think WM 21 was the first non-Ch4 PPV* to be added to box office.


(The Channel 4 PPVs were : Royal Rumble, Backlash, Fully Loaded/Invasion, Armageddon).

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I buy 3 ppvs a year. Summerslam, WM, Rumble. The rest I ether just read the results of or watch on the net.

Obviously watching stuff online is crap. Scrambling around looking for new stream links, crappy quality etc. so it's not ideal. Obviously people will watch the shows if they're on Sky Sports.

Wolfe Tone

It depends what software you use.....

waltersobchak

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

Really is that right ? :eek:
200,000+ for a PPV on Sky Sports and a measly 6,000 for a Box Office PPV ? Wow. Thanks a million for the figures, this is the kinda stuff I was after.

It makes you wonder: Why the hell are they carrying on with the Box Office charade?

I'd love to see the figures over a period of 10 or 12 years say from 1999-present. Does it still work out profitable for Sky to run a show on Box Office even though a similar show on Sky sports could get them a helluva lot more views?


Or does views of a PPV on a channel at 1AM with no ads not making them any money? With UFC on the old WWF/Sky Sports model of a once off subscription getting you the live PPVs you gotta wonder what the thinking is. Surely they'd want as many people watching a show even if it was on Sky Sports?

Is whatever meagre number of PPVs on Sky Sports even an incentive at all to purchase the Sports package? RAW and Smackdown aside I suppose.



This is what I was going to bring up as well. Surely it's the case that British/Irish used to be used to PPVs being in the Sky Sports package? ie. not at extra score on Cox Office.


One Night Only and the UK PPVs aside, Royal Rumble 2002 was the first on Box Office. It was the fallout from the WWF/Ch4 deal that led to a few of them going to pay-per-view/box office. I can only assume that they must've seen the benefits of this and thought "hey, they're actually paying for watching the live events, might as well start charging for more". And they of course have been charging for more and more of them over the years.

I think WM 21 was the first non-Ch4 PPV* to be added to box office.


(The Channel 4 PPVs were : Royal Rumble, Backlash, Fully Loaded/Invasion, Armageddon).





Obviously watching stuff online is crap. Scrambling around looking for new stream links, crappy quality etc. so it's not ideal. Obviously people will watch the shows if they're on Sky Sports.

This year was the first time i watched Wrestlemania online, and tbh it was great, the stream was in HD, and had no problems with it,since then i now actually refuse to pay for WWE PPV's ever again, why waste my hard earned money on something that isn't worth it,and until WWE PPV's are no longer PG it wont change.In my honest opinion the internet really has damaged PPV in the last 4-5 years and logically it will continue to do that, i reckon thats why there's been such a sharp decline in PPV buys.

jaykhunter

I'd imagine that everyone that pays for PPVs on SBO also watches the free PPVs, and so already has the Sky Sports package, so they're making additional money Sky Sports subscribers. That said, SBO costs a lot of money to air live, so I don't know if 2,000 is worth their while.....if the numbers dwindle enough for the PPVs, that WWE would actually lose money on it, we may see every PPV on Sky Sports. That said, keeping up appearances is important, and I'd imagine they'd keep up the money-losing charade even if it costs them money. TNA have been been doing that for years now.....

Anyway, I'd imagine that SBO's best chance at the most money is to have houses order a few PPVs in a row, for a reduced rate, like they do towards the end of the year -- i.e. 3 PPVs for 30 euro, that kind of thing.

For people that think PPVs/weekly TV shows are relegated to crappy streams and youtube-quality links, you're behind the times. That's like saying modern gaming is on the PS1. High Definition downloads do exist, and are available the next day, and are friggin' awesome.....so I've heard. I don't want to get into trouble so i'll leave it at that!

flahavaj

waltersobchak wrote: »

Its only a running joke about Voltwad getting into trouble..

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055530011&highlight=prices

That thread still blows my mind when I read it today. Hard to believe its the same forum now.:eek:

Meanwhile, back on topic, I haven't paid for a WWE PPV in at least 3 years, nor do I intend to.

waltersobchak

flahavaj wrote: »

That thread still blows my mind when I read it today. Hard to believe its the same forum now.:eek:

Meanwhile, back on topic, I haven't paid for a WWE PPV in at least 3 years, nor do I intend to.

Theres more Red Cards in that thread, than theres been in the World Cup:pac:

Butch Cassidy

waltersobchak wrote: »

This year was the first time i watched Wrestlemania online, and tbh it was great, the stream was in HD, and had no problems with it,since then i now actually refuse to pay for WWE PPV's ever again, why waste my hard earned money on something that isn't worth it,and until WWE PPV's are no longer PG it wont change.In my honest opinion the internet really has damaged PPV in the last 4-5 years and logically it will continue to do that, i reckon thats why there's been such a sharp decline in PPV buys.

Is it not the ridiclousness of some of the booking over the years, lack of new stars other than Cena, shift to PG and erm... UFC that has damaged PPV buys? That's not to say internet streams haven't hit buys I'm sure it has. With the PG thing though maybe that's a contributor to buys with parents buying it for their kids.


I never liked the pay to view model for each show. Maybe a WrestleMania but with the others it can be so hit and miss and after getting burned for a score on a crappy booked show you're less likely to be fooled again. Though last year's 'Mania wasn't great imo.

jaykhunter wrote: »

I'd imagine that everyone that pays for PPVs on SBO also watches the free PPVs, and so already has the Sky Sports package, so they're making additional money Sky Sports subscribers. That said, SBO costs a lot of money to air live, so I don't know if 2,000 is worth their while.....if the numbers dwindle enough for the PPVs, that WWE would actually lose money on it, we may see every PPV on Sky Sports.

I dunno, could this really happen? If anything the shift is towards more Box Office stuff. WWE love their revenue streams (pardon the pun:p) and while I don't know exactly how the deal works with Sky surely they'd lose something if some of the shows moved from Box Office back to Sky Sports?

Does anyone know how the deal with Sky and WWE work and who pays who how much?

jaykhunter wrote: »

Anyway, I'd imagine that SBO's best chance at the most money is to have houses order a few PPVs in a row, for a reduced rate, like they do towards the end of the year -- i.e. 3 PPVs for 30 euro, that kind of thing.

3 for 30 wouldn't be a bad punt. There'd wanna be a serious discount for taking the risk on at least two events you don't know the full card of.

waltersobchak

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

Is it not the ridiclousness of some of the booking over the years, lack of new stars other than Cena, shift to PG and erm... UFC that has damaged PPV buys? That's not to say internet streams haven't hit buys I'm sure it has. With the PG thing though maybe that's a contributor to buys with parents buying it for their kids.


I never liked the pay to view model for each show. Maybe a WrestleMania but with the others it can be so hit and miss and after getting burned for a score on a crappy booked show you're less likely to be fooled again. Though last year's 'Mania wasn't great imo.

Well its definitely a combination of things, the stagnant Main Event, the Brand Extension, lack of new Stars, PG etc etc are all contributing factors, but the fact that in the last 2 or so years you can now watch PPV's live on your Laptop for free has clearly negatively affected WWE and indeed TNA and UFC PPV buys also..

Butch Cassidy

UFC is doing considerable numbers though isn't it?

Paul Hemany was speaking at UFC 116 about how MMA domestic buys in USA were higher than all wrestling buys in the world. (or something, can't remember the source but it was sometime before the fight).

jaykhunter

UFC are putting on fantastic shows and are in the biggest boom period in their company's history. Their big shows clock the best part of a million buys or more, and that happens a few times throughout the year.

I don't have figures but i'd imagine UFC are doubling WWE's PPV sales in a total. WWE gets ~210,000 per normal PPV, but UFC

Most of why WWE's PPV sales are low is that they suck :pac: I'd imagine a small portion of fans are UFC and WWE fans, and so would only choose one, but they'd probably choose UFC, as it's the more entertaining show.

Edit : Found some figures. UFC in 2009 have 6 of the 10 (domestic) highest grossing PPVs, WM25 coming in at #10.

If UFC did ~8 million buys in 2009, WWE pulled in 2.6 million domestic, 4.2 worldwide.
That's really impressive, and even more so since Brock only fought once that year (UFC 100, which got 1.6 million buys!)

Gambra

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

With the PG thing though maybe that's a contributor to buys with parents buying it for their kids.

I've never understood this line of reasoning for SBO/UK. I don't know any parent that would let their kid watch a show that starts at 1am on a school night, esp one that costs €22 to watch.

Butch Cassidy

Gambra wrote: »

I've never understood this line of reasoning for SBO/UK. I don't know any parent that would let their kid watch a show that starts at 1am on a school night, esp one that costs €22 to watch.

Well I don't know if there's parents letting their kid stay up to watch them but the shows can be recorded obviously.

jaykhunter wrote: »

UFC are putting on fantastic shows and are in the biggest boom period in their company's history. Their big shows clock the best part of a million buys or more, and that happens a few times throughout the year.

I don't have figures but i'd imagine UFC are doubling WWE's PPV sales in a total. WWE gets ~210,000 per normal PPV, but UFC

Most of why WWE's PPV sales are low is that they suck :pac: I'd imagine a small portion of fans are UFC and WWE fans, and so would only choose one, but they'd probably choose UFC, as it's the more entertaining show.

Edit : Found some figures. UFC in 2009 have 6 of the 10 (domestic) highest grossing PPVs, WM25 coming in at #10.

If UFC did ~8 million buys in 2009, WWE pulled in 2.6 million domestic, 4.2 worldwide.
That's really impressive, and even more so since Brock only fought once that year (UFC 100, which got 1.6 million buys!)

UFC are in the biggest boom period of the sport's history!


Also, Brock's UFC fights have surely been bigger than any of all of his wrestling ones? It's gotta be eating up at both Vince and Paul Levesque that they never did a Triple H/Lesnar match. As Paul Heyman said in a video posted int he TNA thread, WWE have so many revenue streams it's doubtful they'll run into trouble. They could lose market share sure but they're still selling silly foam belts and incredibly expensive t-shirts.

waltersobchak

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

Also, Brock's UFC fights have surely been bigger than any of all of his wrestling ones? It's gotta be eating up at both Vince and Paul Levesque that they never did a Triple H/Lesnar match. As Paul Heyman said in a video posted int he TNA thread, WWE have so many revenue streams it's doubtful they'll run into trouble. They could lose market share sure but they're still selling silly foam belts and incredibly expensive t-shirts.

Well Brock Main Evented one of the worse drawing Manias of all-time, so his WWE drawing power was hardly stellar to be honest..

jaykhunter

waltersobchak wrote: »

Well Brock Main Evented one of the worse drawing Manias of all-time, so his WWE drawing power was hardly stellar to be honest..

I don't know why that Mania (XIX) drew so badly. Maybe because all of the focus was on McMahon/Hogan, which no-one wanted to see. Or that Triple H was in full c**t mode and they didn't rally behind Booker. Or maybe it wasn't promoted well enough.

But at the time Angle and Lesnar (along with Benoit, Guerrero and someone else) were leading the best smackdown shows of it's entire run and was much better than smackdown. I can only imagine how bad the rating would be if they didn't have Lesnar there.

I wonder if there are many households that would get Sky Sports for the wrestling first of all, and not because it's an added bonus for being able to watch the footie...

waltersobchak

jaykhunter wrote: »

I don't know why that Mania (XIX) drew so badly. Maybe because all of the focus was on McMahon/Hogan, which no-one wanted to see. Or that Triple H was in full c**t mode and they didn't rally behind Booker. Or maybe it wasn't promoted well enough.

But at the time Angle and Lesnar (along with Benoit, Guerrero and someone else) were leading the best smackdown shows of it's entire run and was much better than smackdown. I can only imagine how bad the rating would be if they didn't have Lesnar there.

I wonder if there are many households that would get Sky Sports for the wrestling first of all, and not because it's an added bonus for being able to watch the footie...

In retrospect, its one of the best Mania's of the 00's especially from a wrestling standpoint, and on paper, McMahon/Hogan.. Brock/Angle.. Austin/Rock.. Jericho/HBK and HHH/Booker T should have drawn big time, but it must have been a number of factors, that contributed to its failure. Like the Brands, Raw being terrible at the time, lack of proper promotion of the storylines, also Perhaps had WWE debuted Goldberg at the PPV instead of the following Raw, that would definitely added to PPV buys imho.

Butch Cassidy

jaykhunter wrote: »

I wonder if there are many households that would get Sky Sports for the wrestling first of all, and not because it's an added bonus for being able to watch the footie...

Wrestling or UFC would be the only reason I'd get a channel. I don't do English club football and don't wanna see Ireland play some b-list team in a friendly.

jaykhunter

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

Wrestling or UFC would be the only reason I'd get a channel. I don't do English club football and don't wanna see Ireland play some b-list team in a friendly.

Do you have any brothers or is your dad into sports? I'm saying I imagine the vast majority of wrestling fans start watching as kids, and their household gets Sky Sports for some another reason (football, cricket, what have you) and are introduced to wrestling as a bonus.

Butch Cassidy

I was introduced to wrestling as a kid on Sky 1/UTV . For a period there no wrestling was on Sky1 or any other "standard" Tv channel. Now at least there's some TNA at the weekends on SEtanta Ireland and about an hr of WWE on Sky1.

D2D

Just bumping this

I've just noticed that Bragging Rights is currently scheduled for October 24th, which is the day after UFC 121: Brock Lesnar vs Cain Velasquez.

WWE are prob gonna set a record low rate buys for this.

Charisteas

Dare_2_defy wrote: »

Just bumping this

I've just noticed that Bragging Rights is currently scheduled for October 24th, which is the day after UFC 121: Brock Lesnar vs Cain Velasquez.

WWE are prob gonna set a record low rate buys for this.

Unless it's the return on HHH or Taker

Who plans their PPV's first? And why would the other company want to plan a PPV in the same weekend, surely both companies are going to lose buys.

D2D

Charisteas wrote: »

Who plans their PPV's first? And why would the other company want to plan a PPV in the same weekend, surely both companies are going to lose buys.

Well, WWE usually schedule their PPV's so they never change (e.g Cyber Sunday/Bragging Rights is always on the last Sunday in October..)

Vince135792003

Charisteas wrote: »

Unless it's the return on HHH or Taker

Who plans their PPV's first? And why would the other company want to plan a PPV in the same weekend, surely both companies are going to lose buys.

With UFC being on Saturdays it effects them alot less.

Plus it seems that WWE ppvs have no effect or at the very most a marginal one on UFC ppv buy rates whereas WWE are effected alot more when running them at the same time.

jaykhunter

Dare_2_defy wrote: »

Just bumping this

I've just noticed that Bragging Rights is currently scheduled for October 24th, which is the day after UFC 121: Brock Lesnar vs Cain Velasquez.

WWE are prob gonna set a record low rate buys for this.

Well I imagine that of the fanbase that loves UFC & WWE, but can only afford to buy one PPV/month, they'll all buy that UFC PPV. Bragging Rights is hardly a PPV worth...oh......bragging about. RAW vs SmackDown matches don't draw! (And certainly not a few weeks before the Survivor Series either!!)

Butch Cassidy

Is there a historical reason why WWF/WWE always had their PPVs of a Sunday? UFC like boxing PPV cards are nearly always on a Saturday.

jaykhunter

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

Is there a historical reason why WWF/WWE always had their PPVs of a Sunday? UFC like boxing PPV cards are nearly always on a Saturday.

My guess is that Sunday's prime-time for viewing figures; since most people have the day off; people can meet up and watch wrestling; after going out Friday/Saturday night (which is the worst time to have PPVs).....

.......that said UFC have their PPVs on Sat night and they're doing just fine!!!!

American Football is on on mondays. WWF put wrestling on a monday to "fill" the off-season of Football; because fans would already keep monday nights as football night. So they bear the brunt of lower ratings during football season to keep the "tradition" of sitting down and watching sports on Monday.

Charisteas

Here's some useless trivia - Summerslam used to be on PPV Monday nights, I think they changed it from about 1995 onwards.

Butch Cassidy

Weird I was actually just coming to this thread to ask a question kinda about this...


Does anyone know why wrestling PPVs are on a Sunday while other sporting PPVs are of a Saturday night? Am I naieve in thinking there has to be a complicated reason other than "so as not to compete with real sporting events held on PPV of a saturday night like boxing matches"

GTR63

How many here are renting SummerSlam its not looking good on paper.Taker & HHH not returning is a blow & i'm certain that the PPV Buy figures are going to show that(vince won't be able to blame a stale gimmick for bad SummerSlams buys like he tried to do with Survivor Series last year).Not many want to pay to see Miz,Swagger, McIntyre & any new "Main Event Talent".

steelcityblues

For the sake of good wrestling and build up, they should cut the PPVs to 6 or maybe 7 a year!

Then again, i'm well aware the almighty $ will override this! :rolleyes:

Last PPV I bought was WM22, and since then I don''t regret it!

GTR63

steelcityblues wrote: »

For the sake of good wrestling and build up, they should cut the PPVs to 6 or maybe 7 a year!

Then again, i'm well aware the almighty $ will override this! :rolleyes:

Last PPV I bought was WM22, and since then I don''t regret it!

Your right.The last ppv I paid for & felt I got my moneys worth was WrestleMania XXIV(thanks Taker & Hbk).I rented The Rumble for the Rumble match,then Chamber ppv in Feb & the middle of that event was a Disgrace two Chamber matches & the rest thrown together.Then you had Mania that had quite a lot of shortcomings.
PS Love the George Costanza pic.

steelcityblues

GTR63 wrote: »

Your right.The last ppv I paid for & felt I got my moneys worth was WrestleMania XXIV(thanks Taker & Hbk).I rented The Rumble for the Rumble match,then Chamber ppv in Feb & the middle of that event was a Disgrace two Chamber matches & the rest thrown together.Then you had Mania that had quite a lot of shortcomings.
PS Love the George Costanza pic.

Thanks! I believe that the prestige of PPVs has been sorely affected, since they went with the one per month thing back in the mid 90s.

They could get away with it for several years, when you had a red-hot Austin/Rock/Angle, etc. with the more casual fans, but certainly not nowadays in this not- so-golden-age for bigtime wrestling!