For the people against the "part time" wrestlers

[Troy]

*Third attempt to make this post, IE keeps crashing and causing me to lose the entire post. Fingers crossed this works.

It is really tough to create a WrestleMania worthy card without the use of part timers. WrestleMania ever since the beginning has always been about star attractions on the show, that is part of the reason why it is a special PPV and not just a bog standard PPV. I mean seriously the first ever Mania was mainevented by Mr T! It has been happening since the beginning and continues to be used because it works so well. If WWE just used the regular roster then WM would tank as a PPV as there would be nothing to make it special. The thing that makes WM great is that it features the best of the best of the current roster PLUS appearances from part time wrestlers PLUS appearances from celebrities. It is all of that which makes it a special attraction and the most successful PPV by far year in year out.

Here is my attempt at a card with just the full time roster.

WWE and World Heavyweight Championship Unification bout
John Cena vs. Randy Orton
Without any special attractions to boost interest there needs to be something big in the mainevent to draw people in. Unifying the world titles is a big thing to do and would create plenty of interest. I am pretending that Punk retained at the Rumble and then convinced Cena to cash in his title shot at Elimination Chamber, it has happened before so it isn't anything new. Orton can take the title at EC inside the WHC EC match. They are the two biggest names on their respective brands plus they have plenty of history so they can carry the show. Just to shake things up have Orton win here

No DQ Grudge Match
CM Punk vs. Ryback
Restart this feud again at Elimination Chamber by having Ryback cost Punk the title against Cena as revenge for Punk screwing him out of title victories. No DQ gimmick because it fits the feud well and allows it to be a bit of a feud ender.

Six Man Tag Match
The Shield vs. Sheamus, Del Rio & Big Show
Yes it is a bit of a random pairing with Big Show and Del Rio siding together but basically my thought behind it is pick the three biggest names not in the top two matches. Sheamus has history with The Shield and all they need to do is have Shield attack Del Rio and Show to get them involved.

MITB contract on the line
Dolph Ziggler vs. Kofi Kingston
Yes this is a bit of a weak match for Ziggler but with my idea to unify the world titles it obviously removes one world title match. Note that the MITB contract would now be for the unified WWE title. Kingston is a bit of a perennial midcarder but it isn't hard to build him up as a challenger. Ziggler would retain here.

Luchas de Apuestas
Mask vs. Career
Sin Cara vs. Rey Mysterio
Get this match going again and make it interesting by adding in the good old Lucha stipulation. Rather than making it mask vs. mask, which shouldn't happen because neither guy should be made to lose their mask, I think it is a lot more interesting by putting Mysterio's career on the line. Make it a feud about respect and a passing of the torch kind of thing. Sin Cara wins in the end and Mysterio actually retires.
United States Championship
Antonio Cesaro vs. The Miz
They can drag this feud out until WM and this can be the match where Miz finally takes the title from Cesaro. Would be a good first hour midcard match.

Intercontinental Championship
Wade Barrett (c) vs. Christian
Christian can return and win himself a title shot, would be a good pairing as Christian would bring the best out of Barrett and I would just have Christian win the title for a feelgood moment early in the show.

Tag Team Championship
Four Corners Elimination Match
Team Hell No (c) vs. Rhodes Scholars vs. Primetime Players vs. The Usos
Rather than just going through with the same Team Hell No vs. Rhodes Scholars match mix it up with a couple more teams getting involved and make it an elimination match. Yes the other two teams aren't as strong but they could build them in the next two months and make them noteworthy teams. This would be where Rhodes Scholars take the titles.

Divas Title
Kaitlyn (c) vs. AJ
Token Divas match on the card. AJ is by far the most over diva so she should be in this match and I would just give her the title here.


So that is my attempt. Nowhere near the level that a Mania card should be but I think that it would be decent. Obviously the unified title match is the big draw but I think that the other top three matches would also draw a bit. Even just one or two part timers would help this card a lot.

 

[Keith]

Wheres the "overnight" thing come from?

The Rock was in the WWE full time for 6 years, Lesnar just 2........CM Punk is in his 7th year, Ziggler too.

Not WWE's fault Punk after 4 years as a main eventer still can't carry a show without the ratings tanking and Raw getting beat by a dog show, and Ziggler is still a midcarder. They've had more than enough TV time and chances to seize their spot and haven't done shit.


Lashley was never, ever a star though.I hate Punk but can admit he has his fan base and was hot during 2011, at no point was Lashley ever well recieved and he basically got placed at the top of the card for what I can only assume WWE being so thirsty for a black headliner they pretended he already was one.







I have no idea what your point is here, and I've got a feeling you don't know either.

1. Says you, I think Punk has been a big success as a main eventer its just that he is not and may never be a star on the level of The Rock or Austin, but like I said before that is a near impossible level to reach so don't see how you can knock someone for that.

2. Yeah agree with you on Leshley, the guy had little or no talent and didn't connect with fans from the start.

3. Same didn't get his point either.

Troy I am not against part-timers/star attractions at Mania, but am against WWE booking them like they are bigger than the company and making guys who have to sell tickets week in and week out look like jobbers. Of course the ratings are good now, but it is all about the long term.

 

[We Are Legion]

I have no idea what your point is here, and I've got a feeling you don't know either.

If you didn't understand it, perhaps you shouldn't have commented.

 

[Deezy]

You know what, there is no getting to the hardcore fans, they have a grudge against success and hate that the people they cheer for, openly try to embrace that concept of success. Everybody wants Metallica to stay thrash, and look where that gets you.......Slayer, same shit for 30 years.

I could point out that WWE is a business, until I'm blue in the face, but there will be certain people who don't get that concept. I could liken this to a construction company, if I had this concrete pourer who wasn't doing shit like the last guy I hired, guess what? I'm going to call the last guy. And tell the new guy he is lucky to still be on my payroll.

Just because the new guy was with me all job, doesn't mean I can't go outside and grab somebody else, because I know I can get more money with the oloder guy instead of this new guy.

Lemmy Dammit.

 

[Defiant]

But when John Cena leaves, there will be no one left at that construction sight who knows how to operate that machinery and apparently this isn't a problem until they absolutely need a replacement. Isn't that more indicative of a flaw within the company's model somewhere, not the failure and incompetence of every single other employee? When an employee isn't hitting the mark, you could help them or you could just dispose of them. Getting them to where they potentially could be requires work and time but will be worth it in the future. Casting them aside for "not being good enough" is short sighted and lazy, a bad attitude for a business owner to have towards their developing team.

WWE is a business, but also an entertainment company. That makes me a consumer, an audience member, or both. All I want is either a more refined product, or a more entertaining show than the dross we get now. I don't care who the top draw actually is, but tell me there isn't a much more interesting show that could be booked with the all talent WWE have?

I've gone off on too many rants already, but the crux of everything I'm saying is that things have gone rotten somewhere in the Creative team. They can't think of anything to do with Kane and Randy Orton. Kane is Kane and Randy is still super over, but they haven't have interesting to do in forever (even injuries aside). See what I mean? They don't promote any matches ahead of time unless its on PPV despite them being worried about TV ratings. It just doesn't make sense. Until WWE have a team capable of writing a more interesting show and can make better use of the roster, all the exciting mid-card talent or legend appearances won't have any lasting impact on the quality of the show.

 

[Keith]

You know what, there is no getting to the hardcore fans, they have a grudge against success and hate that the people they cheer for, openly try to embrace that concept of success. Everybody wants Metallica to stay thrash, and look where that gets you.......Slayer, same shit for 30 years.

I could point out that WWE is a business, until I'm blue in the face, but there will be certain people who don't get that concept. I could liken this to a construction company, if I had this concrete pourer who wasn't doing shit like the last guy I hired, guess what? I'm going to call the last guy. And tell the new guy he is lucky to still be on my payroll.

Just because the new guy was with me all job, doesn't mean I can't go outside and grab somebody else, because I know I can get more money with the oloder guy instead of this new guy.

Lemmy Dammit.

Yeah and you keep pretending that the quote/unquote hardcore fans are just mindless idiots who don't put any reason behind their thinking, when in reality the people anti-part-timers in this thread have argued their points very well.

To add to your remarks, I reply with a question, shouldn't a business think long term?

 

[The Cork]

But it begs the question "when do you give up on a guy?"

You're making it sound like the WWE should push a guy until he sticks, regardless of talent. They've had their fair share of wrestlers billed as the next big thing since the Attitude Era ended and arguably only one has stood the test, being Cena. You have to have a certain amount of patience for sure, look how many gimmicks it took for Kane to become a top name for example, but there has to be a cut-off point where you go "ok, this guy is useless lets bin him".

Wrestlemania has traditionally been the place where special attractions are featured anyway, it's been the case for years so I don't see what the furore is about some midcarders not getting paychecks.

 

[Kiffy Lube]

kayfabe speaking they only have to defend the belt every thirty days so..

I just meant regular matches, not title matches.

 

[Deezy]

Yeah and you keep pretending that the quote/unquote hardcore fans are just mindless idiots who don't put any reason behind their thinking, when in reality the people anti-part-timers in this thread have argued their points very well.

To add to your remarks, I reply with a question, shouldn't a business think long term?

Cena/rock has been a three year long program.

Why the fuck do you think I have such a problem with quote/unquote smarks, they are the same people who bitch about things being predictable and bitch when WWE do things different like "how dare they swerve us". Or "This program is sooo predictable".

Nothing is ever good enough for them.

 

[Darth Shizzel]

The way I see it you slow push a guy like Ryback and see if they will start to get over with the crowd but you need to give them some freedom of the mic so they don't sound the same that way they will get over with the crowd push them harder but not rush them.

1 person per brand to be pushed and see how they are as a world champion if they are not world champion material well they can drop the belt and go back to midcard until there ready.

 

[Keith]

But it begs the question "when do you give up on a guy?"

You're making it sound like the WWE should push a guy until he sticks, regardless of talent. They've had their fair share of wrestlers billed as the next big thing since the Attitude Era ended and arguably only one has stood the test, being Cena. You have to have a certain amount of patience for sure, look how many gimmicks it took for Kane to become a top name for example, but there has to be a cut-off point where you go "ok, this guy is useless lets bin him".

Wrestlemania has traditionally been the place where special attractions are featured anyway, it's been the case for years so I don't see what the furore is about some midcarders not getting paychecks.

Yeah but again you are talking like Punk hasn't been successful, I consider him to be a sucess, and Daniel Bryan was far more over last year than John Cena was. It just shows what trying something different can achive.

Also deezy like I said I am not against part-timers, but I am against them over shadowing the younger guys who have to be there every to make money, when Miz and R-Truth were made to look like jobbers by the Rock did it really do them or the company any good? My point is, is it not better to have six, seven or eight people over and enjoying sucess than just three or four. This is the model WWF used during their first boom period in the 80s and clearly it worked.

 

[Deezy]

Yeah but again you are talking like Punk hasn't been successful, I consider him to be a sucess, and Daniel Bryan was far more over last year than John Cena was. It just shows what trying something different can achive.

Also deezy like I said I am not against part-timers, but I am against them over shadowing the younger guys who have to be there every to make money, when Miz and R-Truth were made to look like jobbers by the Rock did it really do them or the company any good? My point is, is it not better to have six, seven or eight people over and enjoying sucess than just three or four. This is the model WWF used during their first boom period in the 80s and clearly it worked.

Punk hasn't been succesfull tho he was champ forever, but it didn't mean a thing when he wasn't drawing viewers on his ow, the ratings thread reflects that. Being over and people wanting to watch because of you are two very different things.

This is like saying HBK was a bigger draw dor WWF in 96 than Bret Hart.

 

[Dale]

when Miz and R-Truth were made to look like jobbers by the Rock did it really do them or the company any good?

Please, Cena had the pair of them well and truly his bitches before Rock got in their with them.

 

[Defiant]

Punk hasn't been succesfull tho he was champ forever, but it didn't mean a thing when he wasn't drawing viewers on his ow, the ratings thread reflects that. Being over and people wanting to watch because of you are two very different things.

This is like saying HBK was a bigger draw dor WWF in 96 than Bret Hart.

I don't mean to keep coming back and ranting and picking on you or anything. But this time I hope hope I can lay out where I'm coming from on this.

There are things sales figues also don't reflect. Like I was saying earlier, for the majority of his reign Punk was not booked as the the main attraction of WWE despite being the champion, John Cena was. Even then, the PPV sales thread also shows that Cena wasn't a consistent draw, indicating other factors.

Like I think you said earlier, we may not ever reach a concensus on this matter since people hold firm to their own perspectives and beliefs on where the company should go. But without sounding condiscending, here's where I think the line seems to be: When I look at the quantifiable success (or lack thereof) of a WWE event, I look at the strength of the card, how the overall show looks and whether I as an audience member will enjoy the show and should invest in it. Rarely I find this to be the case, honestly. However, I find that large portions of wrestling fans seem to look at a PPV, who's headlining or who's champion, and conclude that "THAT GUY isn't drawing".

Again, I really don't mean to be insulting. but it seems short-sighted to place all the praise/blame on one of the cast members for the strength of a show, when I think a lot more factors that go into it are based around the overall strength of the card, and whether the show as a whole is worth investing in. So I place a lot of importance on the value of those who book what happens in these shows.

The only exceptions to this are anomalies like Rock or Lesnar. Great for when you need a kickstart in the ratings to get things rolling, but a booking team that relies on them in the manner that WWE are now to get people watching is troublesome. It tells me that once once Rock is gone and the dust has cleared, the booking staff isn't prepared to carry and sustain those ratings. Then the cycle repeats when they need another quick fix solution.

I just find it hard to believe that with the amount of money and influence WWE has, the vast amount of talent on its roster of all backgrounds and styles, more airtime than I think ever before and all the effort and vision required to pull off the social netwrok intergration campaign... The best that we the audience are actually getting out of it is more and more "comedy" skits, unsatisfying storylines that often don't even lead to anywhere and recycled or "safe bet" main events. WWE's shows are overall less engaging than they have been in years despite the actual wrestling being fine and the comfortable position the company sits in.

All things considered, I can only attribute very little of what WWE do to long-term planning. I really don't think exists a convenient, overnight solution to the problems I see in WWE.

 

[Deezy]

There are things sales figues also don't reflect. Like I was saying earlier, for the majority of his reign Punk was not booked as the the main attraction of WWE despite being the champion, John Cena was. Even then, the PPV sales thread also shows that Cena wasn't a consistent draw, indicating other factors.

Like I think you said earlier, we may not ever reach a concensus on this matter since people hold firm to their own perspectives and beliefs on where the company should go. But without sounding condiscending, here's where I think the line seems to be: When I look at the quantifiable success (or lack thereof) of a WWE event, I look at the strength of the card, how the overall show looks and whether I as an audience member will enjoy the show and should invest in it. Rarely I find this to be the case, honestly. However, I find that large portions of wrestling fans seem to look at a PPV, who's headlining or who's champion, and conclude that "THAT GUY isn't drawing".

Again, I really don't mean to be insulting. but it seems short-sighted to place all the praise/blame on one of the cast members for the strength of a show, when I think a lot more factors that go into it are based around the overall strength of the card, and whether the show as a whole is worth investing in. So I place a lot of importance on the value of those who book what happens in these shows.

The only exceptions to this are anomalies like Rock or Lesnar. Great for when you need a kickstart in the ratings to get things rolling, but a booking team that relies on them in the manner that WWE are now to get people watching is troublesome. It tells me that once once Rock is gone and the dust has cleared, the booking staff isn't prepared to carry and sustain those ratings. Then the cycle repeats when they need another quick fix solution.

I just find it hard to believe that with the amount of money and influence WWE has, the vast amount of talent on its roster of all backgrounds and styles, more airtime than I think ever before and all the effort and vision required to pull off the social netwrok intergration campaign... The best that we the audience are actually getting out of it is more and more "comedy" skits, unsatisfying storylines that often don't even lead to anywhere and recycled or "safe bet" main events. WWE's shows are overall less engaging than they have been in years despite the actual wrestling being fine and the comfortable position the company sits in.

You can make excuses until you are blue in the face he ust hasn't been a draw....ratings don't lie.

lame as Cena has been his segments are draws.

Punk didn't draw, it can't be simpler than that.