No, you haven't, because as I've shown both in this post and my last one, Lashley was built up just so he could job to Cena in a bid to increase the latter's popularity.
That’s a completely asinine statement. So you’re telling me that they spent months building up Lashley by giving him the ECW championship, bringing in Donald Trump and pairing Lashley up with him for arguably the biggest match at WM 23, and then had him feud with Vince McMahon over the ECW title for a few months, just to have him lose to Cena. They didn’t do any of that to try and create a new star, they did it all so they could have Cena defeat him on a second rate ppv. Do you not realize how dumb that sounds?
And Punk should have chased the belt rather than winning it.
If the fans didn’t care about him after he won the world title in one of the most exciting ways possible, why would they care about his quest to become champion?
Kane could quite easily have been a main event player, regardless of allegiance. He has the talent, and back in late 1999 / early 2000 he had the heat. But instead of being given any kind of push he was put in stupid angles that watered down his character, like making him part of D-X or giving him a girlfriend.
I thought the argument was about main event face wrestlers, not heels. Even as a heel, Kane was never going to make it as a main eventer. The moment he lost to the Undertaker at WM 14, was when he was done as a legit main event heel. Throughout the history of wrestling, with the exception of the Undertaker, how many monster heels have been able to have a long meaningful career? Once they are beat, it’s pretty much all downhill from there. Kane being booked with DX is the kind of thing that helped him stay as over as he has for such a long time.
No, I'm saying of all the main event faces out there only Cena, Triple H, Hardy and Taker are likely to win a world title, and of them only Cena and Hardy have anything remotely fresh about them.
I disagree. CM Punk also disagrees with you.
I don't blame them for putting a guy in the main event, I blame them for giving him a title he wasn't ready for. Giving Punk the belt when they did would have been like giving Austin the belt in late 1996. Just as his character really starts to catch on as a main event player you give the fans exactly what they want and deal his momentum a serious blow as a result.
That’s a horrible example. By late 96, Austin had accomplished half the things that Punk had by the time he was given the world title.
He came out as a decent upper midcarder at best, rather than the main event monster he could have become.
He came out as a legit main event threat that had the crowd behind him. It was amazing how much the fans got behind him in such a short period of time. The problem is that you’re living in a dream world, where they can snap their fingers and a new main eventer is born every 3 months.
That's a specious argument at best. You've no proof that a guy with his ability couldn't have gotten by on his talent alone. Admittedly he'd had a US title reign before that angle, but that hardly constitutes a serious push.
It’s not that he couldn’t have made it without this feud. My point is that it would have been nearly impossible for him to become as big as fast as he did without this feud.
Yes he got decent exposure from the angle, but he still took a backseat to someone else when he didn't necessarily need to, limiting the push he got.
He took a backseat at Wrestlemania, but he got noticed, and then they took that exposure and ran with it, putting the spotlight entirely on him during his feud with McMahon.
Again, I said he got buried because although he got a decent push from this angle it was all geared towards jobbing him out.
And I have already explained how ridiculous that statement is.
He wrestled his last match 8 days after he lost at Great American Bash and was quoted as saying that, when he left in January of 2008 he did so due to "Circumstances beyond his control" and that he didn't want to leave. Admittedly he had to take some time off to get surgery, but the fact is that he was built up only to lose to Cena, and then let go. Looks an awful lot like a job to me.
So you’re really suggesting that he left because he was given a MONSTER push, and then lost a world title match John Cena? Wouldn’t it be more logical to assume that he left because his girlfriend was released from the company?
He didn't need to win the match, but it would have been nice to see him stick around the main event scene for longer than 8 days.
He had an injury? They even set up a potential storyline with Mr. Kennedy for when Lashley returned. Lashely was obviously someone they had long term plans for, and would have had a big role when he returned, but he chose to leave the company. That has absolutely nothing to do with his feud with McMahon.
How did it work out well? He got his push, lost to Cena and disappeared. It would have been far more beneficial in the long run to give him some wins over wrestler's that actually mattered. As it stands he managed wins over Umaga, JBL and Orton (in a four-way).
It worked out well because he came out of the feud twice as over as he was going into it, and someone that the fans seen as a legit main eventer. The fact that he had an injury and left the company, doesn’t in anyway change the fact that his feud with McMahon worked out perfectly. The feud created a new star.
Yeah I agree, Lashley had basically no charisma, but there are plenty of wrestler's out there who can use a mic. Why couldn't he have had a feud with one of them?
How many established main event heels that could carry a feud on the mic were available at the time? McMahon was a perfect choice. He is someone that the fans always care about, and it doesn’t hurt him to let a wrestler beat him. It was a great way to get Lashley over with the crowd, and from there he could go on to feud with lesser known heels.
Putting him over doesn't mean the wrestlers in question need to get buried at all, it just means they need to give him a rub in the short term.
A wrestler doesn’t have to get buried to put someone over, but you even said yourself that they should have booked him like Goldberg, where he would just run through everyone. With Lashley’s character and his lack of charisma and mic skills, that would have been about the only way for him to get over. Had he done that, then surely he would have buried people in the process.
Worked for Brock Lesnar. Failing that, give the guy a manager.
Brock was booked in a similar way to Goldberg. He ran through the roster, and made a lot of people look weak along the way. That’s the exact thing they were trying to avoid with Lashley. You talk about not having enough main eventers, well Brock Lesnar hurt A LOT of people, and it showed when he decided to bail on the WWE in 2004. They put all of their eggs in one basket with Lesnar, and nobody looked like they were on his level, so they didn’t have anyone that could step in and fill his shoes when he left.
No, I'm one of the people who sees a clear divide in wrestling fans over John Cena. I'm also one of the people who sees Cena merchandise being worn by children. That's why I used the subject of age, it has absolutely nothing to do with looking down on anyone.
So kids buy Cena’s merchandise. So what? If age really didn’t matter to you, why even bring it up?
If he'd have spent more than two months in the spot he might have done.
The ratings decrease during his title reign disagrees with you.
That right there might be one of the ludicrous statements ever made. Popularity alone does not make someone a great main eventer.
No it doesn’t. You also need to be believable in a main event spot and have the ability to put on a good match. Two things that Warrior could do.
He was an awful performer who was fortunate enough to be be popular during a boom period in wrestling.
Now that was one of the most ludicrous statements ever made. If he was such an awful performer, then how did he become as popular as he did?
Half the battle is your popularity, but the other half is your skill in the ring,
What makes you suggest that he didn’t have that skill in the ring? Is it because he didn’t work a technical style? Was it because he worked a style and had a move set that fit his character? Was it the fact that he could go out in the ring and have the entire audience in the palm of his hand? What exactly were these ring skills that he was lacking?
and just because he had one half down doesn't mean the company shouldn't have been looking for someone with the other while he was on top. In this instance they managed to find that someone in Bret Hart. I understand that the two halves are often intrinsically linked, but in the case of Ultimate Warrior and John Cena this isn't the case.
I know, Warrior was such a horrible worker. Putting on those horrible matches at Wrestlemania against Hoagn and Savage…. (that was sarcasm by the way). And suggesting that Cena is a bad wrestler is just downright dumb at this point. He has proven everyone wrong by consistently putting on quality matches.
During his matches is when he gets the majority of his boos as well, which is also what matters.
What matters is that he has EVERYONE into his matches It really doesn’t matter if they are cheering or booing. And don’t use the argument that the fans are booing because they don’t want to see him perform. If that were the case then he wouldn’t have been the top draw for the last 4 years.
Again, John Cena isn't the debate here. I don't dislike him
Really? Because you sound like every Cena hater over the past few years. The fact is, the Cena haters lost. He has proved them wrong, and it’s time to get over the hate for the man.
and I think he works his arse off to try and entertain the fans,
Damn right he does.
however I also think he's just holding the belt until someone better comes along. Just because someone who's not particularly good is popular doesn't mean the WWE shouldn't look for someone better.
Again, the idea that someone as big as a Cena isn’t good, is just laughable.
As I said, I'm sure he does, but the WWE has talent at it's disposal that could potentially have a better following
Like who? Hell, Cena wasn’t even in the main event all year long last year and he was still the most over star and sold the most merchandise. It’s not as if other guys aren’t given the chance to be more over or sell more merchandise. The fact is the fans want Cena more than anyone else right now.
that will - more importantly - last longer.
He’s only turning 32 next month. He has a second movie coming out at the end of this month that will only make him an even bigger star than he already is. There is still PLENTY for Cena to do in wrestling and he has many years left in him.
I don't think Triple H shouldn't be in the top spot, I just think now's the time for him to start making the new stars. The dude's nearly 40 and his heat is almost certainly going to dwindle in the next couple of years, so it might be wise for him to start drawing the curtain on his career while he's still on top rather than waiting until fans aren't interested in him anymore.
5 years ago people were probably making the same argument about The Undertaker and Shawn Michaels, and 5 years later they are still two of the most over guys in the company. Triple H has shown no signs of losing any popularity.
I don't argue that he hasn't made anyone, but of the people he's helped make the two who are most worth mentioning are both heels. Orton and Edge are great at what they do and will draw in fans for years to come I'm sure, but their far too good at being heels to turn.
I don’t really recall Triple H having much to do with Edge becoming the star he is today. He damn sure helped make Batista though, and he has been arguably the company’s second best face over the last 4 years.
Hardy is a good face, but can he be relied upon to carry the company as it's main good guy? Not with his behavioural record
Finally something that I agree with.
(And Batista is several different shades of shit).
A guy that could draw, sell merchandise, be a believable main eventer and put on quality matches is several shades of shit? So far you think that the Ultimate Warrior, Cena and Batista all suck. It’s becoming more evident that you don’t really understand wrestling.
So basically the entire company rests on Cena, who just isn't good enough when you look at the midcard talent the WWE has had (and still has) over the past couple of years.
What mid card talent are you suggesting that is better than Cena?
I've already given you my oppinion of the mistakes WWE made with the new people they brought into the main event. Lashley was given two decent PPV's then let go,
An argument that I have already explained makes no sense. Also, he wasn’t let go, he asked for his release. Big difference.
and I didn't once say I had a problem with Punk being a main eventer, I had a problem with him becoming a champion so soon after he got bumped up the card, a distinction you keep on ignoring.
I’m not ignoring it. It’s the fact that you want to see different people in the main event, and when they give a guy two years of GREAT booking and then put him in the main event, you complain that it was too soon. The point being you would complain either way. Had they not put Punk in the main event, you would complain that it’s the same guys over and over, and when they do put Punk in the main event, you complain that he was pushed to fast when he fails.
When the fans have already voted with their wallets and stopped watching because of the very same wrestler you've just given the belt to it seems like a pretty fucking stupid idea.
Hogan had not held the belt in over a year. The fans weren’t watching when new guys like Flair and Bret Hart held the belt, so why not try to spark interest again by putting the belt on your top draw of all time that hasn’t held the belt in over a year? I’m not sure how it’s a stupid idea.
It's a mistake bookers have been making for decades; leaving someone in the main event until the fans get bored and stop watching, then desperately trying to make a new star after they've already lost the numbers rather than creating one while interest is still high.
They did create a new star in the Ultimate Warrior. He’s just an idiot so it didn’t work out.
I don't understand how anyone can argue with this point. Triple H has been on top for too long. You agree with this.
I agree with this? I think I have explained countless times that it’s completely justified for him to remain on top.
I argue that Triple H should be giving the rub to new stars instead of facing Orton again because Hardy is unreliable and Cena, despite his popularity, is not good enough to carry the company on his own, especially when you consider the talent the WWE has.
This feud with Orton could turn him into an even BIGGER star, so it seems like a good idea. And Cena seems to have done a pretty damn good of carrying the company for the last few years.
Of the guys they let go, London,
Suggesting that Paul London could have been a big star is an absolute joke.
Agreed, and the WWE agreed as well. He was well on his way to becoming a big star but he chose to leave the company.
Doubtful. He was decent on the mic but below average in the ring. He was given a good push and the fans really didn’t care about him.
and Dykstra all had the potential to be big stars.
He didn’t have a great look, and wasn’t very good in the ring or the mic. He just got overhyped because he was so young. He also had quite an attitude, and judging by the blog he wrote when he was released, he thought very highly of himself. It was probably because of people like you giving him praise that he didn’t really deserve. Who knows with him though? As I said, he is young, so he has time to mature and possibly become a good wrestler one day. With the skills he had at the time, or lack there of, and with his attitude problem, the WWE made the right move in releasing him.
Of the guys they still have Morrison,
Maybe. He is getting one of hell of a good push though, so if he doesn’t make it you can’t blame the WWE for that.
Do something more than say your name twice and maybe he could become a big star. I’m not blaming him for this, but staying healthy wouldn’t hurt either.
He definitely has the potential, but he’s still overrated. He was given one hell of a push when he came into the WWE, yet he failed to really get the fans behind him. He was having a decent feud with Matt Hardy, but as soon as Hardy got injured the fans stopped caring about him. We’ll see though. The WWE obviously hasn’t given up on him and after his losing streak he seems to be getting a decent push again and is getting a chance to prove himself as a face.
How many times has he been pushed? He has improved somewhat in the ring, but he’s still not good enough to main event, and on the mic he is still atrocious.
Mike Knox (although he's still some way off)
LOL
and Punk could all be the next big thing if booked correctly.
He won’t be a huge star, but he could possibly be a decent upper mid card/lower main eventer one day.
If none of them work then go to TNA. Alex Shelley,
This is just as ridiculous as suggesting Paul London could be a big star.
Solid worker. His size could be a set back though.
Please. Samoa Joe is ridiculously overrated. He’s completely average in the ring, and he’s crap on the mic. He also has an absolutely horrible look. When he was champ, the ratings went down. Samoa Joe is a less talented Bill Goldberg. The only time he is even remotely interesting is when is running over his opponents. This is proven by people always complaining about how Joe was booked as champ. All you ever hear is “have him go back to being dominant like when he was in the X-division.â€
or Sabin all have the talent to make a big splash in the main event
Same as London and Shelley.
and in the case of AJ and Joe both could step into the top tier almost immediately.
Well considering that there are a lot of WWE fans that probably don’t have a clue who either of these guys are, it’s extremely doubtful. Samoa Joe really doesn’t have any chance of being a big star in the WWE.
There are so many talented wrestlers out there who could happily step up to the main event scene in the WWE
I’m sure just about any wrestler out there would happily step into the main event scene in the WWE. That doesn’t mean they would be successful.
(Although of the ones WWE has only Punk and Kennedy are really ready, though I think Mike Knox is awesome) that it just doesn't make sense for them to continue booking the same feuds every year.
So what should they have booked for Wrestlemania? Orton vs. Kofi Kingston?
It's thinking like yours that keeps the popularity of the wrestling business cyclical. Did you ever stop and wonder why every slump the industry has ever seen has followed directly after a period of 4 or 5 years of success with the same guys at the top? Did you ever think that maybe these slumps shouldn't just be explained away as "Wrestling's like that"? Well apparently neither did the bookers, because they look set to do the exact same thing again. I just can't believe the short-sightedness of some people. You seem to enjoy talking about how the WWE is a business and should be run as such, however you also seem to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that while WWE is pushing the stars that are still popular today at the expense of those who will be popular tomorrow it is happily engaging in the most Blue business strategy of all time. If they actually understood how business worked and were willing to take the minor ratings hit associated with making their major stars give the rub to younger ones every 4 years or so then the business would never have slump periods because they could present a fresh-looking product every few years. But instead they insist on giving the fans the wrestler's they want until they decide they don't want them anymore, by which point it's far too late.
There is no point in breaking all of this down. It’s just some of the most arrogant crap that I have ever read. You seem to think that you could run a wrestling promotion better than Vince McMahon. So I ask you, how is your promotion doing? Has it made you a billionaire like it did for Vince McMahon? I think Vince McMahon has a bit of an idea what he’s doing, seeing as how he’s probably flying over us right now in his private jet.
Like I said in a previous post, you’re living in a fantasy world. It’s very easy to sit here and say that they should keep having new guys in the main event, but you’re not realistically thinking how hard it is to create a legit main eventer that the fans will pay to see. You said that they could pretty much put anyone in the main event and the fans will buy into them, that is a load of crap. Vince McMahon’s on screen character has said that he tells the fans what they want, and people have come to believe that, but it’s completely untrue. He GIVES the fans what they want. He can’t just put anyone in the top spot and they will buy into him. This has been proven by countless wrestlers that have failed in the top spot. If it were really as easy to create stars the way you think it is, then why has nobody become as big of a star as Hogan?
You'd have thought that by now someone would have noticed that wrestling fans are fickle and that in order to keep them happy sometimes you need to take away the stars they want to see before they're done with them.
This type of statement is proof that your promotion would be a complete flop. According to you they should have taken the Rock out of the main event before they did, instead of making as much money off of him as they could. You have already suggested taking Cena out of the main event, the guy that has brought in the most money for the company in the last 4 years. Your promotion would be less successful than ROH.
You said earlier that my opinion about The Rock being boring in early 2001 doesn't matter because everyone else was entertained, but what happened a year or so after? Sure enough the fans got bored of both him and Austin,
The fans started to dwindle when The Rock and Austin left. And if you’re seriously suggesting that the WWE could have kept the ratings of 6, then you are more delusional than I thought. Wrestling in the late 90’s become a fad, and a bunch of people just jumped on the bandwagon. But just like every other fad throughout time, when something new came along, those people jumped off the wrestling bandwagon and onto the next one.
and because wrestler's like Benoit
What more could they have done with Benoit’s character? Working with Austin or the Rock wasn’t going to help make him a big star. Chris Benoit was solid in the ring, and that’s how he got the fans behind him enough to get a world title run. He was never going to be the face of a company, because he lacked the charisma and mic skills.
and Angle had been given nowhere near the screen time of those two the business entered a slump. Know what would have solved it? You guessed it! The company pre-empting fans getting bored of the top guys! Jesus-Fucking-Christ! Who knew!? If the company had actually invested any time whatsoever in getting those two to put over a decent face while they still had a year or two of being on top the whole situation could have been avoided. But no. They ignored historical trends and lost money because of it.
Congratulations. You have managed to top your own stupidity. Did you seriously just suggest that Kurt Angle was not pushed enough and given enough screen time? Did you even watch wrestling in 2000? He was given one of the best pushes for a new star, given TONS of screen time, and he has defeated both The Rock and Austin to become a world champion.
You keep saying that the fans got bored of the Rock and Stone Cold, and that’s why ratings went down. The Rock left before the fans could get bored of him. The fans did start to get a bit tired of Austin, and he was pushed down the card because of it.
Let’s also remember that before the Rock left, he put over Brock Lesnar, the guy they were hoping could become the new face of the company. And when Austin was asked to put someone over he didn’t like that, and didn’t like the fact that he had moved down the card so he walked out of the company. So don’t blame the WWE for not having Austin create new stars, blame Austin for that.
Also they royally fucked up the booking of the invasion
Alright. I’m not sure what that has to do with anything we are talking about. Is this your attempt to show how poorly run the WWE is? Sure they could have gotten more out of the invasion angle, but they didn’t. It happens. They aren’t perfect. Like I have already said, I’m sure that you could run the company better and make it a lot more money. I mean with the great ideas you have like taking John Cena out of the main event, and replacing him with Paul London, how could you fail?
and ruined Goldberg's character. Go them.
Wow. That has even less to do with what we are talking about. How did they ruin Goldberg’s character? By having him lose? Goldberg is a one trick pony. He proved this in WCW when he lost to Nash, and he proved it in the WWE once he was defeated. Would your idea be to have Goldberg run over the entire roster for 2 years straight? Because that is the only way to not “ruin†his character.
And before you say that the WWE is acting differently this time and creating new stars: please don't waste your breath. Triple H, 'Taker, Shawn Michaels, Cena and even Orton have been on top for years now.
Because they bring in the most fans? Why would they not be on top? Again you are showing just how unrealistic you are. Since 2005, Cena, Batista, Edge, and Orton have all become solidified main event talents. That is damn good number. Since that time they have tried like hell to make guys like Bobby Lashley, Mr. Kennedy, MVP, Miz and Morrison, Carlito, Chris Master, CM Punk, Jack Swagger etc. all into future main eventers. Some of those guys decided to leave the company, some can’t stay healthy, some are still up and coming stars, and some just were not good enough talents to get over enough with the fans to become main event stars. They have pretty much succeeded in making Jeff Hardy into a main event star, and provided he can stay out of trouble will be a main eventer for some time. Saying that they are not trying to make new stars is completely idiotic.
In terms of television time no one can compare to that lot, perhaps with the exception of Edge.
Yup. The WWE doesn’t know what they are doing at all. I mean why give your top draws the most screen time? They should be giving the most screen time to Jamie Noble instead.
I'm sure Orton and Edge will survive the next slump despite this (along with Hardy most likely) but I'd be surprised if anyone else is as lucky. Even Jericho, who's one of the best performers of all time, is an all-too-familiar face and can't stave off the fan's boredom forever. Sometime soon the WWE is going to have to decide whether it wants to engage it's established main-eventers in putting over younger stars or face another slump. Hundred pounds says they choose the latter because, hell, bookers are masters of excusing bad business as "The way the industry works".
What slump? They were just in a slump, and since the return of John Cena have turned it around, and wrestling as a whole seems to be experiencing a mini boom. And I’m sure if Paul London were in the main event spot like you want, instead of John Cena, he would have been able to increase the ratings the moment he came back right?
Anyway, I've said my piece. I'm sure I've changed no ones mind
Make a valid point next time and you might.
and I'm sure we'll be seeing Triple H vs Orton / Edge vs Cena for the millionth time at Wrestlemania next year. Time will tell whether I'm proved correct.
If they continue to bring in fans and make money for the company, why wouldn’t they still be on top?
And LegendKiller, that wasn't what I was arguing. Try reading posts before commenting on them mate.
I think he was talking about the entire post, but just wanted to comment on that one specific argument you made.
