WWE Power 25 Statistics

     Competitive sport exists to start arguments. Just as is the case with politics and religion, humans are innately drawn into "who's better than who" comparative discussions despite the futility in thinking that concrete consensus will ever be reached. Less is at stake when discussing sports, but rarely does that lessen the passion of arguments as to why individual performers and teams are or were the best. We are a silly species.
     In constructing strong arguments as to why one athlete or team is superior to another, one would be foolish if statistics aren't cited. Magic Johnson's Lakers teams of the '80s won five NBA Championships, Larry Bird's Celtics, three. This, of course, is not the end of the argument as to which team was more dominant, but a good point in favor of L.A. If you want to argue on the subject of sports in a bar, know your stats or be obliterated.
     Professional wrestling, is not a sport. It is an exhibition. But wrestlers are competing for top spots within the companies they perform for, a struggle often times as dramatic and intriguing as persuing championships in other pro sports. What professional wrestling lacks, however, is statistics which, arguably, makes it less fun to argue about.
     To be fair, wrestling has championships, which can be the foundation for discussion. For example, Hulk Hogan is a 6-time WWE Champion, The Rock is a 7-time WWE Champion. Settled? Well, Hogan's six reigns spanned a combined 2,184 days, dwarfing Rock's 297 days as champion. A Rock supporter might argue that his reigns came during a period when wrestling fans were more savvy and thus babyface competitors needed to be more "defeatable" to satiate the audience. Hogan supporters will counter that the success of pro wrestling in the '80s and Hogan's marketability make him more dominant in an industry whose main aim is to make money. Blah blah blah and so forth.
   

     But past major championships, the ability to compare top performers gets tricky. What about top performers like Jake Roberts whose championship shelf is next to empty? Win/loss records can be misleading. Mid-card babyface wrestlers will undoubtedly maintain far better "records" than top heels. In the first three months of 2010, Christian compiled an impressive 8-3 record compared to, say, Batista's dismal 2-6 record. But Batista also became WWE Champion during that period while Christian made minimal waves in ECW. No one would argue that Christian was pushed harder than Batista during that period. The numbers, at least in this instance, lie.
     And so, WWE, the most high-profile wrestling organization ever, has often struggled to own any mindshare in the sports bars of the world. But several years ago the company added a feature to their website that attempted to quantify the week-to-week prominence and importance of its performers editorially: The Power 25.
     The system is not perfect, by any measure. In fact, it can be hard to intelligently justify its existence after reading through it. But what the Power 25 has done is track the way the WWE pushes its performers numerically over a significant span of time. And where there are numbers, statistical analysis can be done.
     Perhaps you will take a glance at the numbers below and be underwhelmed at the findings. If you've been a WWE fan over the period that the Power 25 chronicles, there is little revelatory to be found. But, in a way, that's the point. The fact that the numbers reconfirm what you may have already felt speaks to their accuracy. And what's more important is the historical record they provide. In a hundred years, people -- as though they'd want to -- could cite the Power 25 to argue John Cena's dominance of the sport in a similar way you can use Billboard to prove the importance of The Beatles.
     Or, more likely, this is all really dumb. That's okay.

     The Power 25 performance of all WWE Superstars since WWE.com started the feature in late 2005 has been compiled and is presented below. Rankings are color coded as follows: 1-5; 6-10; 11-15; 16-20; 21-25. Also, title reigns are noted by the color of the rankings. If a performer ended a week in possession of a title it is color coded as follows: WWE Champion; World Heavyweight Champion; ECW Champion; Intercontinental Champion, United States Champion; Either Tag Team Champion; Women's Champion; Diva's Champion.
     Rankings are visually divided by the WWE pay-per-view event they are building towards. For example, if weekly rankings fall under the header "Wrestlemania XXVI" the weeks included lead up to and end at that event.
    "Wks." equals the total weeks in which that Superstar qualified for the Power 25 during that calendar year. "Avg." equals the sum of all rankings divided by number of qualified weeks.

     In given years, Superstars are ordered by their "Score."


    The decision to use this system is so as not to give unfair weight to performers who were only active for part of the year. For example, in 2007, John Cena compiled the lowest average ranking ever for a full calendar year since the inception of the Power 25. However, Cena missed three months at the end of 2007 due to injury. Therefore, Cena's score is lower than his average and Batista -- who's average is slightly lower -- is ranked higher since he competed at a high level for the entire year. The score of a performer who is ranked during every week during the year will match his average. But a performer who is inactive for portions of the year -- as is often the case with, say, the Undertaker -- will suffer a drop in his score.
     Perfect? No. But here it is anyway.
     Joey Styles... hire me.