Legends

[Kaedon]

The WWE have been using legends as a means to put over new talent (Mick Foley and Dustin Rhodes) or as secondary/developmental characters (Hacksaw Jim Duggan). Do you think this is a good way to utilize the waining WWE Legend talent pool or should they even be used at all? Should the Legends be brought in specifically to put over younger guys making the product less predictable(Orton/Dusty), or should the WWE sacrifice some newer talent to have a great match with a slightly less predictable outcome?

 

[PeepShow]

Yes, I think its one of the better ideas the WWE has be doing TBH. I mean, how else would they get put over? Have them beat a guy like Haas, or Carlito? I dont think so.

 

[OrtonIsGod]

Agreed, a legend beating an up and comer really wouldn't do much for the legend. He's already pretty over, and doesn't need the win. It's give the up and comer a big win that can sometimes vault into a good career. For some, it can be a career defining win and for others it's a stepping stone onto a bigger win.

I definitely think that legends should be used to put over younger stars. It helps elevates younger stars into upper card status.

With that being said, you can't totally overuse this idea or the effect is gone.

 

[Beast Of Wrestling]

Yeah. why have them beat a mid-carder when they can beat a legend?!

 

[Kaedon]

because maybe it would make sense in the story. If Hulk Hogan faces, Paul London, how believable would it be for Pauly to beat him? Ric Flair has beaten LOTS of people. He's won the tag titles with Roddy Piper and won the IC Belt from Carlito. Sometimes it makes sense for the legend to win.

 

[3lions]

It depends on the situation really. If Hacksaw faced off with Carlito, I'd expect Carlito to win, as Hacksaw is old and crappy. But when Flair feuded with guys upon his return to the ring a while ago, it was more acceptable for Flair to win, as he is one of the greatest ever. I think it depends on the situation. If it is a guy which WWE want to push and has potential to be a ME star (Kennedy/Punk/Rhodes), then they should get the win (or win 2/3 matches). But obviously, this shouldn't be applied for guys like Dykstra who are going nowhere.

 

[kingovkings]

i agree wiv 3 lions.it depend on the situation at the time.but yeah i think its good to use legends to put over new talent.

 

[Nancy Di Loreto]

If a legend is going to be used to put over a younger talent, unless the legend is a jobber *cough Hacksaw cough*, the best idea would to have them feud.

Let's say Flair and Kennedy. 1st match these guys have, Kennedy takes the win, but disrespects Flair. 2nd match, Flair wins, but Kennedy attacks him, 3rd match is on PPV, and Kennedy takes out the win in the feud.

Is Flair's popularity hurt? No. Has this helped Kennedy? Yes...

 

[CenaMark54]

I'll give one example....Mick Foley.

The guy never wins anymore. Its gotten to a point where a victory over him almost means nothing. Flair is becoming the same way.

Legends have to win every once in a while to make future victories over them seem important.

It does work when a legend comes back for one match and loses then goes away for a while. However, the legend should never come back for one match and win (See Orton/Hogan and SS 06 for an example.)

So...

One match: Up and comer goes over
Multi match fued: Legend splits matches with up and comer but loses the last match.

 

[phantomgerald]

I just think WWE should go with who the crowd reacts to more, and who they think have more value to the company. It should be done on a case-by-case basis, not predetermined that the up and comer is getting over in a feud. Whatever the case is, no legend should come in and expect a win and leave after that. It'll just hurt the credibility of the young guy.

 

[the last gunslinger]

if the legend is being used properly then they should split the matches...but I think that the legend needs to put over the younger guys.....because there just wouldn't be any sense to make the legend win unless he was going to get some kind of main even push

 

[Marvel26]

If WWE use the same legends to put people over (Mick Foley) I think we begin to guess the outcome before the feud has started properly.

 

[the last gunslinger]

If they're using Ron Simmons to some way give Santino another push then it can work if it is booked right wich so far I think it has

 

[chavoheat]

Using Simmons occasionally like this to help get Marella over is a good idea.

Having Duggan wrestle regularly is a bad idea.

 

[OrtonIsGod]

Well...a win over Flair reallly hasn't meant much since 2003. Foley is always getting beat. If the WWE really wants wins over these guys to mean anything , they'll have to win a few matches first. While I feel Foley is over enough to where a win over him is big, especially in the Hardcore environment, it's not as big now as it was when Orton beat him back at Backlash 04....everyone just expects him to do the job and come back in in 9-12 months and do another job.

With Flair retiring, I'm expecting him to start going on a winning streak and then maybe putting over someone huge in his retirement match. Flair doesn't necessarily have to win his retirement match. In fact, if he puts his career on the line in a match, I think it would make an interesting storyline.

Overall, Legends can be used, but if overused they become useless in an effort to put someone over.