Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteinmad
(Post 3814903)
For every Rock, Lesnar, A-Train and others that come back, guys like Ziggler, Barrett, Rhodes, Swagger, Sheamus, Ryder, Bryan etc miss out on air-time. In a few years time, when guys like the Rock, Lesnar, Undertaker, Austin, Michaels etc are well and truly done and retired, who will WWE rely on as 'big draws' when it's Wrestlemania?
So right now, should Lashley come back? No.
|
I wasn't even planning on watching WWE anymore, but because Lesnar is back, I will. I want the best guys for the job. I don't care about their age. I don't believe in giving young guys air-time all for the sake of them being young. Being young is not good enough. Infact, them being young is all the more reason for them to mid-card and learn the craft. I'll never understand the hard-on internet fans have for younger wrestlers. I just don't get it.
The truth is, if any of those young guys had talent, and were deserving of a top spot, they wouldn't have to be just given it. They'd be so over with the fans that WWE would have no choice but to put them over just like they did with Austin in 1997. He was never intended to be a mega babyface, but because the fans responded to him, he got his shot. That's who decides who is over or not - The fans. The voice of internet fans is not loud enough, and I think most of you guys are just parroting what you hear higher ranking net nerds say.
For the most part, I think one does need to be at least 35 or older to be a draw because most of those younger guys look too much like babies in the face I think wrestlers should have a mean and menacing look to them and not a youthful, college boy face that belongs on MTV. Guys can't look like your neighbor to be a draw for the most part, and most of these young guys don't have anything unique about them in my view. They could be in a grocery store and I wouldn't look twice at them.
It's too many young and ordinary looking wrestlers and too much of a PG cheesy "family" rating that has caused me to not even watch wrestling anymore. I honestly don't think their wrestling skills are that good and their mic skills are terrible.
I think a lot of these kids grew up in the internet age and believed all that nonsense about wrestling only being about wrestling and that it wasn't about entertainment which is a bunch of hogwash in my view. The Rock wouldn't have become famous if he didn't have a chance to cut the promos he did, and The Stone Cold/McMahon feud would not had been nearly as epic as it was if it was just about wrestling. I think wrestling and knowing how to cut a good promo are equally important.
But anyhow, these Internet marks are all indy wrestlers now and they are killing the business because they let a bunch of other internet marks who never wrestled or cut a promo in their life influence them with their BS opinions.
I think the only reason why WWE is still in business is because there is no real competition anymore and I think they went back to entertaining little kids because the people they use to target got tired of the product. I also don't think these younger wrestlers have been in the business long enough to be running things and the days of paying dues seem to be no more.
WWE is still drawing in the numbers and I think WWE will always do that, however compare the numbers to what they use to be over ten years ago. Heck, if wrestlers today are so good, how come the wrestling business still depends on the older guys to help them out? It's because the wrestlers today are not a pimple on the butt to the older wrestlers.
In my view, it takes takes five....six...maybe seven years to really "get" the business. Heck, most of the youth are washed out in three years. I don't see light at the end of the tunnel until the business changes which will be when Hunter gets old and fat!
The old school way to get to the top of the wrestling world was working your way through the tag ranks, to I.C champ, then to World champ. Now a guy like Shemus works with Triple H an is World champ after only four months of being in the business!
I also don't think that just because you've had a few birthdays that you should just stop living and that the wrestling world should discriminate against wrestlers just because they are older. All that matters is the talent and if an older wrestler has more talent then a younger wrestler, I think he should be given a title run and given plenty of attention. It's not fair to discriminate against an older wrestler who has already proven he can draw, entertain people and make the promoters money. I think giving an older guy the ball and letting him run with it is smart business and you seem to disagree with that. I don't want some untalented wrestler being the top guy if he doesn't have the talent and is only getting the ball because he happens to be young. That's not good enough in my view.
Having typed all that, do you think WWE would have honestly lasted long if they were doing a youth movement back when WCW was it it's best in 96' and 97' and happen to have mostly older wrestlers in the spotlight?
It was a bad-ass looking, 30-something year old Stone Cold that saved WWE. I know The Rock helped too and he was under 30 at the time, but he was a very rare human being.
