The Roman Empire Will Reign
- Thread starter KITT
- Start date
-
Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!
I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register
Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board
Well first, you're using strawmen in my point about Bryan. I did not once make the point that Daniel Bryan can be the main guy in the company. I only said that your age argument was invalid. Then you go off and talk about Bryan's image and such and it's completely irrelevant because you are arguing against a point I never made.
Shawn Michaels was one example. Need more? Hulk Hogan was 30 when he won his first world championship. Bret Hart was 35 when he won his first world title. He was 34 when he won his first major singles title and was only established as a tag team wrestler who occasionally wrestled single before that. "Stone Cold" Steve Austin was 32 when his character took off and he won his belt and he was arguably more popular than any of the other guys have come close to. Daniel Bryan was 30 when he won the World Heavyweight Championship for the first time. That was four years ago and not 18 months. You can argue that Bryan wasn't one of the top guys in the world at that point but I'll point out that he was the World Heavyweight Champion. My point being that you can disqualify Bryan for many things and I won't argue against them. You can disqualify Bryan due to his look or anything else. I actually don't think Daniel Bryan would last very long as the top guy in the company for many reasons but the one reason you are completely wrong about is his age. That is completely irrelevant and without consistency when compared historically to other wrestlers.
Yes John Cena does a lot of charity work, but his job is first and foremost as a wrestler. He is neither the first one to do this and also not the first one to do it to the extent that he has...ref Hulk Hogan. But that's irrelevant. People tune in to WWE to watch wrestling, not because Cena does charity work. The charity work and media presence is not what keeps people watching. We turn in to see the promos and the wrestling and Cena has seriously lacked there ever since he won his first world title. I have always been the first to say he was a damn good brawler before then and something seriously changed the moment he won that belt from JBL. So although you might think that the charity work is more important than the wrestling or promo cutting, that is just not realistic. You can be a the top guy in a wrestling company by wrestling and not do charity work. You cannot be the top guy in a wrestling company by doing charity work and not wrestling. What Cena does is commendable but it's part of his life more than it is part of his job and other wrestlers will not be held to that standard.
You're way off about Hulk Hogan getting a little media attention. Hogan was the focus of WWF at the time when wrestling first got major media attention. Hulk Hogan granted over 200 wishes from the Make a Wish foundation and was the most requested celebrity in the 1980's much like Cena is now. Steve Austin was the top guy in the company during the company's most prosperous time period and he did it by cutting really good promos and wrestling damn good matches. And you can bet your ass if Austin had been physically capable of it, he would have been the top guy for a lot longer than he was. The WWE has not come close to the ratings they had under Austin with Cena as their top guy.
The amusing fact is that we're way off the point you were trying to make. I actually agree with you about pushing Reigns. I actually think now is the right time to push him. You don't always want to wait until you're completely positive that your top guy might be ready because until you're on the top, you really can't be 100% prepared for it. I think Reigns can adjust well.
But the name of the game is still wrestling and Cena has not set any bars higher than anyone else in this department.
Last edited:
Wait, what makes you think that Cena is the one who "raised the bar" on the media and charity work? Hulk Hogan was the #1 requested Make a Wish celebrity in the 1980s and Make a Wish didn't even start until the mid 80s (84 I think?). There are many guys who poor blood, sweat, and tears into the company outside the ring. The reason you hear more about what Cena does is because WWE knows how to publicize.
What does any of that have to do with Bryan's age? 30s is too old for charity work? His crazy-ass beard (that WWE made him grow/keep btw) slows him down? I'm afraid I'm simply not getting your argument here.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 3,334
- Reaction score
- 1,703
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 37
Barring any serious injury that forces you into retirement early (Bret, Austin, Edge, etc.), the grand majority of wrestlers can perform well into their late 40's/early 50's. Age is sometimes just a number, and just look at the age of when some of the talent in the past made it. Austin was 33 when the Austin boom took off, Batista was 36 when he won his first world title and had a very good run before leaving (while still having a lot left in the tank... if he had stuck around in 2010 and only left for the first time last year, that would have been a long nine year run as a top name), etc. Hell, Bret Hart was pushing 37 when he was deemed the leader of the "New Generation" in the aftermath of Wrestlemania 10, but it didn't matter because he was a fresh face in the main event and was still performing at a high level.
Bryan being 34 could mean he has a good 12-16 years left in him. I don't see him becoming the long-term face of the company either, but the last reason why is because of his age.
Shawn Michaels wasn't an active wrestler in 2000.
With regards to Cena, WWE has tried multiple suitors to be #2 in the company. They tried Batista, Orton, Lashley, Mysterio, Jeff Hardy and CM Punk.
Mysterio was too small and injury prone, Lashley was p*ssy whipped, Hardy was a drug addict, Orton sucked and CM Punk quit.
Before them, Brock Lesnar quit, Edge wasn't babyface material and both Eddie Guerrero and Kurt Angle pushed their health to the absolute limit.
When you consider each name I mentioned, why should people wonder why McMahon is so dependent on John Cena.
WWE is dependent on Cena because Cena is the only talent in the past 15 years whose given his heart and soul to the company without question.
WWE has tried other talent but they weren't dependable. Cena also knows his body and can diagnose/catch problems before they worsen. His education proves that, something Austin had problems with.
Post 9/11, Cena has been given a hero gimmick that he never asked for. Neither Rock nor Austin were held to the degree of backlash that this guy has endured.
It's irrelevant to my point that Shawn Michaels was inactive in 2000. My point was that wrestlers after the age of 34 have had considerable success.
Okay, when did I say any of these things about Cena that you inserted into the conversation? The only thing I said about John Cena in my post is that I feel WWE needs to have an ensemble cast right now. I didn't criticize Cena in any way. I never said it was wrong of WWE to fall back on him for 10 years, I merely pointed out they did it and fans are due for something new. I didn't say WWE didn't try to push number two guys. I didn't question Cena's work ethic. There are periods of time when wrestling goes through certain phases and the Cena years are a lot like the Hogan years in that WWE mostly relied on one guy. I never said it was wrong to do that. However, after Hogan they had more of an ensemble cast than one guy at the top and I merely said it was time to do that again. I did not disparage the Cena years in any way. Although I don't agree with much of what you said, this thread is not about John Cena and I'm not going to get into yet another Cena debate, especially to defend points I didn't even make in my post.
Last edited:
Tshe Shawn Michaels comment is false reductio ad absurdum, if I am not mistaken. Rather than address tmakingthe point that I was making, which was that wrestlers have had major success past the age of 34, he pointed out that Michaels did not wrestle in 2000, when he turned 34, which had absolutely nothing to do with my point. In fact, by pointing this out, A.M.F. actually stregnthened outmy position by pointing out that Michaels was even older when he returned to wrestling.
The entire rest of the post was a hasty generalization. I am not a Cena fan by any means, but I have never once questioned the man's work ethic or importance to the WWE during his run. Simply because I think that it is time for a more ensemble cast does not disparage John Cena in any way. So level headed it may have been, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation I was making.
Whenever I post anything using my android, my posts become riddled with typos that weren't there before I posted. I can't do my character of an elitist jerk if my posts make me look like I can't spell.
My point was relevant, though. The ensemble cast Cena has has been nothing short of disappointing.
If you re-read my post, you'll notice the lack of support WWE has had the past 15 years.
I don't see you being wrong, but you may not realize just how difficult its been with a faulty WWE developmental system run by Johnny Ace.
The transition between Jim Ross to Johnny Ace and to Triple H was deplorable.
WWE could have booked Shelton Benjamin better but he lacked on the mic (apparently). ECW failed, Jericho left, Christian left and very few of the WCW hopefuls panned out (injuries, quitting, obscurity)
Had developmental been better, had Johnny Ace not been such a tool maybe this conversation would be different. Cena's supporting cast was so awful JBL had to save it twice.
Triple H is head of talent and things should turn around. He is writing the wrongs of Johnny Ace as we speak.
The only thing you said that I listed as irrelevant was your comment about Shawn Michaels' age. I only said it was irrelevant that Shawn Michaels was inactive in 2000, the year I listed as the age he turned 34.
Your points were all good, but they weren't addressing my points. I think you're assuming I was saying that it was a bad thing to have Cena at the top rather than having an ensemble cast. I didn't say that. I just said that wrestling goes through phases where they have a guy on top for a while by himself i.e. Hogan or Cena, or they go through periods of time where they have more of an ensemble cast, Bob Backlund years, New Generation Years and the Attitude Era. But I never said it was a bad thing, I only said that I think that an ensemble cast is going to be more necessary soon.
Ohhhh. Ok. I believe I've got your premise now. You're saying (I believe) that WWE should spread the wealth.
I thoroughly enjoyed Smackdown from 2002 - 2005 because literally any given match could go either way.
It seemed every talent had a shot because each feud seemed balanced in the fans eyes.
No man was given a 'spot'. Even the Divas on RAW were doing a spectacular job. Business may have suffered but the uncertainty of a 'top guy' balanced the playing field a ton.
Coming off the Attitude Era, fans weren't treated to a 'mainstream talent' making it a place of opportunity for a new star to take the bull by the horns.
I don't know that WWE wants a repeat of the New Generation Years or the early Ruthless Aggression Era because, financially, they weren't so prosperous.
Coincidentally, those were my favorite years to watch. It didn't seem so much like a corporation, but a wrestling company. I expect this new wave of talent to be even better than either of those two periods (New Gen, Early Ruthless) financially.
Then again, maybe I've misread your point altogether.
You got the gist. WWF actually screwed up the New Generation years by second guessing themselves. They tried to push Bret Hart and wussed out and returned to Hogan (at Hogan's recommendation of course) . Then they tried to push Luger and wussed out, but they didn't have Hogan to go back on.
If we do get an ensemble cast in the upcoming years, there is one thing I am sure of. John Cena will not be like Hogan was, constantly maintaining (by his own admission) that it makes no sense to build new stars because they have him. Cena won't come back and do to the new draw what Hogan did to Bret Hart in 1993. I may not like him as a wrestler, but he's a much more decent guy than Hogan.
However I am barely awake at the moment so who knows if I am making sense.
This is not in response really to any specific post, just a clarification on why I brought up Bryan's age. Roman is 5 years younger which is significant. Bryan vs Brock is still a great possible match, but I don't know if they should hold off on crowning a new top guy just to have it. That's not for me to decide though, I'm just along for the ride.