This is what you call "killing the ratings??" Let's see how it really looks when you show more numbers from the same time period. Red means time that Orton was champ 2004 Wins the title for the first time at Summerslam, turns face the next night and holds on to the title for 4 weeks. A one episode drop which went right back to the average ratings outside of the Summerslam build up episodes. No jump in the ratings after he loses the title.. 2005 Another one episode drop which not only goes back up the next episode but some of the following episodes do better in ratings then the previous champ... and do you know who that champ is? John Cena... I guess that 3.9 dip to 3.3 with Cena as champ means he's a "rating killer" by your own logic. 2009 So not only has Cena shown the exact same type of quick drops after winning the title but Orton as champ has actually been able to get higher ratings then the same time period as the year before, which is pretty noteworthy considering the average ratings usually drop each year... Nope not with Orton, quite the opposite and he wasn't even a champ in 2008... And let's not forget most of these title wins was as a heel.. Not bad for a heel champ. Here's the best part though. Here's the solid proof that Orton as champ is not a "ratings killer." Average WWE Raw ratings by champion, 2005-2016 *Average ratings compiled using data from Gerweck.net*Championship history from Wikipedia. https://www.cagesideseats.com/2016/4/7/11388518/raw-ratings-per-champion-since-2005 This is the part where you think of something witty to say and change the subject to how nobody likes me... You've been served, now shut your mouth and stop making false claims.