Reviving a dead horse: Reexamining the WrestleMania III attendance debate

[CarpetCrawler]

Dave has also said the opposite--that the WWF came up with a number to "beat the Pope," which would be a hell of a feat considering the Pope's visit was September of '87. Granted, Basil DeVito said the same thing in the WM coffee table book.

 

I was misremembering. Dave was indeed claiming it was the Silverdome that said The Pope drew 95,000 so that wrestling couldn't claim the attendance record. Carry on.

 

[Johnny Sorrow]

There really isnt any need to investigate this. Whats the point?

[FMKK]

There really isnt any need to investigate this. Whats the point?

The same as any other article about an entertainment event - because people might be interested. Not everything has to be the most serious thing in the world.

[PeteF3]

There really isnt any need to investigate this. Whats the point?

For someone who preaches positivity and fun you sure seem to have a real bug up your ass about what other people might enjoy.

[bucky]

Yeah, I mean, there isn't really a need for Johnny to smoke an eighth a day and post garbage on a message board, but that doesn't stop him.

[Jmare007]

There really isnt any need to investigate this. Whats the point?

 

To have fun discussing it, dummy.

[Bix]

There really isnt any need to investigate this. Whats the point?

 

Mazel tov on officially declaring yourself the most useless poster here.

[Blazer]

On and off, I spent the last few months going over newspaper clippings, old newsletters, & archived web pages as well as sending emails, making calls, and filing public record requests to try to determine the actual attendance in the Pontiac Silverdome at WrestleMania III. My latest article at Deadspin is the result of that research: https://deadspin.com/how-many-people-were-actually-at-wrestlemania-iii-a-de-1824178481

 

Loss said I could use this as a conversation starter, so let's do that: In light of the newspaper reports, Steve Harms' comments, weird Observer discrepancies/coincidences, and everything else, what does everyone think the number was? 93,173? 78,500? 88,000? Nothing resembling any of the above? Tamalie from Wrestling Classics attempted a head count of the floor seats in the high resolution photo and came up with roughly 6,300, so almost 87,000 fans if the official Silverdome football capacity was a shoot or a football capacity in the ~72,000 range if it was a work.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

I don't post as often enough here as I would like, but I particularly enjoy the Wrestlemania 3 attendance discussions. I saw the event live on closed circuit at a theater outside of Chicago in high school, so it holds a special slice of nostalgia for me. Bix, this is an excellent piece. I enjoy your work on BTS with Kris and hope I can be a guest some day.

 

I never questioned the attendance when it was announced. It felt right.

 

To me, however, the attendance wasn't the paid fans in the house tonight. It's pretty reasonable to understand they gave away tickets in the upper corners to fill it up at the end. To me, the attendance isn't just the people in the seats either. I count everyone in the building that night, from the guy sitting in section 500 Row 29 to Aretha to Howard Finkel and everyone in between. Everyone under the roof.

 

The Silverdome capacity was a legit 80,000. This is gospel. You don't mess around and work official NFL capacities. The blackout rules in the early 80s were serious business. The seats had about 80,000 people in them. However, I will say this. In recent years with clearer video (WM3 dvd editions) and 55" televisions, I've noticed more empty seats in the lower and upper bowls than I had seen in past viewings. They are scattered, but they are there. You definitely don't see the large open sections like at the Hoosierdome for WM8, but early in the event you can see random blue seats. The WWF had a camera scaffold set up on each end in the upper portion of the lower bowl, and you can see empty seats below these. So, were the seats filled to capacity? Maybe 99%. Let's say 80,000+/-

 

On the floor, I see about 8,000 people.

 

How many people from Titan were underneath, production crews, Silverdome security, announcers?

 

I'd say there were 93,173 in the building that night.

 

Wait, did they count Gorilla and Jesse? Make it 93,175! -hopefully someone gets this reference.

 

However, to circle back to Meltzer and Zane B. No, there's no way in hell there were ONLY 78,000 in the house that night. That's ludicrous.

[Bix]

Both Tom Buchanan (Titan's photographer in 1987, who emailed me) and one of the Deadspin commenters pointed out something I had never heard before:

 

There were a lot of people in hallways etc. who get let in solely to fill standing room. Buchanan took photos but it doesn't seem like WWE published them.

 

Suffice to say that would mean that ~78k through the turnstiles makes even less sense unless the fixed seating capacity was worked even more than Dave thought.

[fxnj]

If the company's internal financial reports say there were 78k fans seated in the building and the number was corroborated by multiple internal sources, it seems pretty open and shut that that's the real attendance number. No other number receives this much leeway or this much stock placed in eyeball tests of official photos.

[Cornette's racket]

If the company's internal financial reports say there were 78k fans seated in the building and the number was corroborated by multiple internal sources, it seems pretty open and shut that that's the real attendance number. No other number receives this much leeway or this much stock placed in eyeball tests of official photos.

But the point is there may not have been 93,173 there but how the hell do you have less than the official shoot seating capacity of the stadium ? That seems ridiculous as that would mean there were big gaps that aren't shown which there isn't. There are small gaps at either end where there is a camera tower but not 2,000 seats missing.

[NickH]

OK people lets count.

[Dooley]

If the company's internal financial reports say there were 78k fans seated in the building and the number was corroborated by multiple internal sources, it seems pretty open and shut that that's the real attendance number. No other number receives this much leeway or this much stock placed in eyeball tests of official photos.

If people are willing to believe they would inflate the number to seem more important, why wouldn't they believe that they would deflate the number to potentially save money on taxes? They weren't a public company at the time, so I could see internal financials being a little murky.

[Robert S]

 

If the company's internal financial reports say there were 78k fans seated in the building and the number was corroborated by multiple internal sources, it seems pretty open and shut that that's the real attendance number. No other number receives this much leeway or this much stock placed in eyeball tests of official photos.

If people are willing to believe they would inflate the number to seem more important, why wouldn't they believe that they would deflate the number to potentially save money on taxes? They weren't a public company at the time, so I could see internal financials being a little murky.

 

Even though they are a publicly traded company now they still are announcing fake numbers every year (at least on the broadcasts, I highly assume that on the financial reports they are using the real numbers).

[fxnj]

 

If the company's internal financial reports say there were 78k fans seated in the building and the number was corroborated by multiple internal sources, it seems pretty open and shut that that's the real attendance number. No other number receives this much leeway or this much stock placed in eyeball tests of official photos.

If people are willing to believe they would inflate the number to seem more important, why wouldn't they believe that they would deflate the number to potentially save money on taxes? They weren't a public company at the time, so I could see internal financials being a little murky.

 

Does WWE really have a reputation of doing something like that at any point in their history? When 32's attendance came out as 80k, no one seemed to think they might be fudging the taxes even though the official pictures don't make it look like anything near 1/5 of the arena is empty. If the main crux of the argument is that the arena "looks" at or near capacity in official photos and camerework, then that is some pretty poor evidence considering it's pretty much the job of the guys taking those pics to make the attendance seem as impressive as possible. There's no way they'd make it easy to see the empty seats scattered around the top level.

[SteveJRogers]

 

There really isnt any need to investigate this. Whats the point?

For someone who preaches positivity and fun you sure seem to have a real bug up your ass about what other people might enjoy.

 

 

Here is the thing though. It would be one thing if this was revisionist historians trying to get to the bottom of conflicting reports and accounts of events, or new evidence coming to light in order to prove or disprove an urban legend.

 

But this is more about crusades by anti-WWE PR spin machine types to flat out prove the WWE kayfabed (keyword there as opposed to a non scripted sport fudging numbers) their WM III attendance numbers. For no other purpose than to put up a big "GOTCHA! HA! HA! (that was meant to be in the voice of Nelson from The Simpsons).

 

I mean we are talking about people who are rooting for the numbers to be as low as possible for no other reason than to confirm their biases that the WWE are lying liars.

 

Despite the fact that, for example, no one really cares that there was no tournament in Rio de Janerio to crown Pat Patterson the first Intercontinental Champion. Its accepted into the kayfabe cannon, despite the IC belt being a reconstituted North American title that Patterson went over Ted DiBiase for earlier in the year.

 

Do they fudge numbers? Of course they do, and did back in the day, but so do non scripted sporting events as well. Its not the end of the world if you find out WM III's totals fall far from the kayfabed total. Just means their "official" total was inflated because they are a scripted form of entertainment. Okay, the WM III total by the WWE was probably in whatever Detroit Lion media guide that listed Silverdome attendance record, but even their Lion sellout totals could be taken with all kinds of grains of salt.

[Blazer]

Both Tom Buchanan (Titan's photographer in 1987, who emailed me) and one of the Deadspin commenters pointed out something I had never heard before:

 

There were a lot of people in hallways etc. who get let in solely to fill standing room. Buchanan took photos but it doesn't seem like WWE published them.

 

Suffice to say that would mean that ~78k through the turnstiles makes even less sense unless the fixed seating capacity was worked even more than Dave thought.

 

Regarding Buchanan, did you mean he took photos of the hallways and behind the scenes personnel to prove how much staff was there, but those were never published?

 

Or you were just stating that Buchanan was there in attendance that night and had to go through the turnstyle, pointing out the fact that Titan employees were counted towards the official attendance, even though we may not have seen them on tv?

[Blazer]

 

 

There really isnt any need to investigate this. Whats the point?

For someone who preaches positivity and fun you sure seem to have a real bug up your ass about what other people might enjoy.

 

 

Okay, the WM III total by the WWE was probably in whatever Detroit Lion media guide that listed Silverdome attendance record, but even their Lion sellout totals could be taken with all kinds of grains of salt.

 

 

 

I said this a bit earlier in the thread, but I don't believe NFL attendance figures and stadium capacities are (or were) ever "worked". Those are as legit as legit can be. The blackout rules were serious business for a myriad of reasons.

[SteveJRogers]

 

 

 

 

 

There really isnt any need to investigate this. Whats the point?

For someone who preaches positivity and fun you sure seem to have a real bug up your ass about what other people might enjoy.

Okay, the WM III total by the WWE was probably in whatever Detroit Lion media guide that listed Silverdome attendance record, but even their Lion sellout totals could be taken with all kinds of grains of salt.

 

I said this a bit earlier in the thread, but I don't believe NFL attendance figures and stadium capacities are (or were) ever "worked". Those are as legit as legit can be. The blackout rules were serious business for a myriad of reasons.

Ill give you NFL due to television market blackouts, but MLB teams can be notorious for inflating numbers that dont pass the eyeball test.

 

Going back to the NFL, they literally had to group fans together in the front rows at that first Super Bowl in the LA Coliseum in order to give off the affect of a packed house to TV cameras, and NFL Films footage.

[PeteF3]

 

 

If the company's internal financial reports say there were 78k fans seated in the building and the number was corroborated by multiple internal sources, it seems pretty open and shut that that's the real attendance number. No other number receives this much leeway or this much stock placed in eyeball tests of official photos.

If people are willing to believe they would inflate the number to seem more important, why wouldn't they believe that they would deflate the number to potentially save money on taxes? They weren't a public company at the time, so I could see internal financials being a little murky.

 

Does WWE really have a reputation of doing something like that at any point in their history? When 32's attendance came out as 80k, no one seemed to think they might be fudging the taxes even though the official pictures don't make it look like anything near 1/5 of the arena is empty. If the main crux of the argument is that the arena "looks" at or near capacity in official photos and camerework, then that is some pretty poor evidence considering it's pretty much the job of the guys taking those pics to make the attendance seem as impressive as possible. There's no way they'd make it easy to see the empty seats scattered around the top level.

 

 

32 came when the company was publicly traded and they weren't going to play games like that.

 

Wrestling has a long, long, LONG history that probably continues to this day of promoters claiming smaller houses than they actually drew when it came time to decide payroll or pay taxes.

 

 

Also, compare and contrast this (also professional) photo of the Hoosier Dome at WM8. You can do all the camera tricks in the world, there are clearly more empty seats in the upper balcony and on the floor than there are at Mania 3.

 

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/08/22/sports/Y-JP-MACUR/Y-JP-MACUR-master1050.jpg

 

Here's the 1994 World Cup also at the Silverdome, also with a pro photographer at virtually the same angle, also with visible swathes of empty seats.

[PeteF3]

 

 

There really isnt any need to investigate this. Whats the point?

For someone who preaches positivity and fun you sure seem to have a real bug up your ass about what other people might enjoy.

 

 

Here is the thing though. It would be one thing if this was revisionist historians trying to get to the bottom of conflicting reports and accounts of events, or new evidence coming to light in order to prove or disprove an urban legend.

 

But this is more about crusades by anti-WWE PR spin machine types to flat out prove the WWE kayfabed (keyword there as opposed to a non scripted sport fudging numbers) their WM III attendance numbers. For no other purpose than to put up a big "GOTCHA! HA! HA! (that was meant to be in the voice of Nelson from The Simpsons).

 

This is quite literally nothing like that. If anything Bix's argument (and mine as well) actually serves in the WWF's favor, because we're claiming there's *more* people there than the "real" number of 78.5K.

 

I kind of wish 93,173 could just be ignored entirely, because neither the 78K believers or skeptics believe in it. Attendances are worked for every sporting event, wrestling event, concert, et al when released publicly--it's nothing unique to wrestling. But the figure's presence complicates the issue because a lot of the people supporting the 78K figure go by the argument, "Oh, you're just a WWF fanboy who believes what they tell you." No--both 93K and 78K can be wrong. This false dichotomy needs to be taken out back and shot.

[shodate]

i never said i was a failure but for such as time for a 78'5 k paied event ot pull only 1.5 million usd is low is not when in another hot time 2001 RR 2001 drew around 15k paid and dew around 670k gate that just show the level of comping wwe did for WM III just for a number

 

note the 1st million us gate in boxing was not os far before this much was not co med this could have been the first 2 million gate for anything but wwe never wanted the set gate record like at promotor would they just wanted to beat the rolling stones who said they could out draw the pope from what i have read

 

then again they di not hold the worldwide record for wrestling attendance 180k or 190ks from the 2nd korea show i know that was not gate record wwe hold that buy i shear number of people seeing the show that 2nd day will never be beaten by anyone may be MKW get big enough one day but never WWE or NJPW

[SteveJRogers]

i never said i was a failure but for such as time for a 78'5 k paied event ot pull only 1.5 million usd is low is not when in another hot time 2001 RR 2001 drew around 15k paid and dew around 670k gate that just show the level of comping wwe did for WM III just for a number

 

note the 1st million us gate in boxing was not os far before this much was not co med this could have been the first 2 million gate for anything but wwe never wanted the set gate record like at promotor would they just wanted to beat the rolling stones who said they could out draw the pope from what i have read

 

then again they di not hold the worldwide record for wrestling attendance 180k or 190ks from the 2nd korea show i know that was not gate record wwe hold that buy i shear number of people seeing the show that 2nd day will never be beaten by anyone may be MKW get big enough one day but never WWE or NJPW

Id wager tickets from the stadium were cheaper in 1987 than 2000. Plus 2000 was in the middle of the first heyday of second market broker resellers. I dont think Stub Hub was a thing yet, but certaintly the likes of TicketMaster caused the orginal costs of tickets to unique events like a wrestling PPV to skyrocket between 1987 and 2000.

[soup23]

Shodate, you can't compare a gate from 1987 and 2001. A lot of inflation to account for as well as market education on the "fair" value for seeing a live event. The Observer talks about the $9 WM 3 seat sections which is a price range that would not exist in the RR 2001 setup.

[Bix]

 

 

Both Tom Buchanan (Titan's photographer in 1987, who emailed me) and one of the Deadspin commenters pointed out something I had never heard before:

 

There were a lot of people in hallways etc. who get let in solely to fill standing room. Buchanan took photos but it doesn't seem like WWE published them.

 

Suffice to say that would mean that ~78k through the turnstiles makes even less sense unless the fixed seating capacity was worked even more than Dave thought.

Regarding Buchanan, did you mean he took photos of the hallways and behind the scenes personnel to prove how much staff was there, but those were never published?

 

Or you were just stating that Buchanan was there in attendance that night and had to go through the turnstyle, pointing out the fact that Titan employees were counted towards the official attendance, even though we may not have seen them on tv?

That he took pictures of the standing room fans.