DISCUSSION - The current WWE era and their failed strategy to "make everyone look credible."
 

DISCUSSION - The current WWE era and their failed strategy to "make everyone look credible."

The one major difference between the current WWE era and the Attitude era, was that the Attitude era knew that only a select few stars ever have a realistic shot of being "THE" guy. In knowing that, the WWE protected those guys by having them win almost all of their matches (unless facing the top 1-2 stars of the company) while grooming them to the top of the card.


Its almost as though once the WWE knew who they wanted to push, they booked them very strongly and were extremely careful as to who and when they jobbed to.


The majority of other wrestlers on the card were simply filler - and were there to only add to the entertainment of the overall product:


For example:


In 1997 - you had Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, and Undertaker as your big 3 main-eventers. Once the WWE knew that they intended to push Austin, they were extremely careful in protecting his character while pushing him to the moon. You never ever saw Austin jobbing in random matches, etc.


1998-1999 - Same thing. Austin and Undertaker were your two biggest main-eventers, while The Rock and Triple H were your rising stars. The WWE chose Triple H and The Rock to be their "next guys," and did almost everything in their power to not have them job to random people. Rocky and Hunter were protected a shit tonne. Guys like Kane and Mankind also won about 90% of their matches, and pretty much only jobbed to the guys I've mentioned on this list. By keeping Kane and Mankind strong, it meant so much more to those that were actually successful in defeating those two.


Guys like Godfather, Val Venis, Al Snow, Bossman, Jeff Jarret, Ken Shamrock, X-Pac, etc., etc., etc. all had ZERO chances of becoming a main-eventer (and were deliberately booked as such), but it didn't matter - they were simply there to add to the overall value and entertainment of the show.


In 2000 - same thing. Rock and Hunter were your two biggest stars, and the WWE did whatever they could do elevate Kurt Angle. The only time Angle ever lost, was in "fluke defeats," or to Rocky, Hunter, Taker, and Big Show (while Show was still seen as a credible main-eventer).


Long story short - the WWE had an established 'internal' structure/pecking order within the roster, in terms of who was going to get pushed. You had your current main-eventers (Bret, Shawn, Taker, Austin, Hunter, Rocky), you had your 'pretend' main-eventers that won 90% of their matches and then ultimately jobbed to the selected 1-2 rising talents (i.e. Kane, Mankind, Big Show), and then you had your 1-2 rising stars (i.e. Austin, Rocky, Hunter, Angle, Lesnar, Orton, Cena). Everyone else was just there to add value and entertainment to the show.



Fast forward to today's WWE product, and it seems like the biggest reason why the WWE cannot 'elevate' their stars to the level that they need to be at, is because they aren't booked as strongly as they should. If the WWE really wants to have success in creating "the next guy," they need to book him VERY VERY strong, and not have him job to random people.


Although the WWE have finally started to "clue in" to this (i.e. outside of his loss to John Cena, Kevin Owens is flat out dominating his opponents), I can't help but feel that the WWE really missed the boat with Roman Reigns, Seth Rollins, Bray Wyatt, Cesaro, etc., etc.


It just seems that in an effort to "make everyone look good," the WWE kind of self-sabotaged themselves by making these superstars look less special. If you want Roman Reigns to be your next guy?!?! Great! Just don't have him job to Bray Wyatt.


Even when the WWE were pushing Daniel Bryan back in 2014, they had him job cleanly to Bray Wyatt. My question, is why?!? This would be the equivalent of having had Austin job to Owen Hart in 1998, before defeating Shawn Micahels at Wreslemania 14.




CONCLUSION: If the WWE wants to slowly get back to their Attitude era ways, a significant step in the right direction would be to


1) Pick the 1-2 stars that you want as your new main-eventers over the next 1-2 years


2) Book them strong as fuck (and ONLY make them job to your top star - i.e. John Cena in this case)


3) Do not attempt to "push everyone" and realize the reality that 90% of WWE superstars won't get to the main-event level and as result, should only be used to add entertainment value to the show, while jobbing to those 1-2 selected guys. In the Attitude era, guys like Godfather, Val Venis, Al Snow, X-Pac, Road Dogg, Ken Shamrock, Bossman, etc., etc., etc., were never going to be main-eventers, but were used in such a way that they added tremendous value and entertainment to the overall show.

This seems like solid reasoning to me. At some point, fans are going to get sick of seeing their favorites lose as much as they win. The idea of heels losing even when they are champions is detrimental too. If you're sending the message that the win matters for the good guy, then the loss needs to matter for the bad guy. You can't pay Paul without robbing Peter. But the company constantly sends the message that the wins and the losses don't matter. They don't want anyone looking any poorer, but no one looks any richer either.

I think the WWE is also afraid they will get top stars. Whether it's Bobby Lashley or Brock Lesnar to blame for this is debatable, but it seems that the WWE wants everyone to have some sort of "TV acceptable" level of being marketable, without anyone truly getting over to the point where they could leave and be a success anywhere else. Keep everyone warmish without being hot seems to be desired goal. The only thing is that with only so much emotional investment people can have, this is spread more and more thinly.

A thought experiment I often do: Can you think of any contracted performers that the WWE could absolutely not be the same without in 2015? The only person who really comes to mind is John Cena. Now, they wouldn't release Randy Orton, but does anyone really notice his semi-frequent absences from television?

And a lot of this does stem from the WWE's desire to be "entertainment" and not "professional wrestling." I'm sorry, but it's true. Part of the attraction in professional wrestling is having two guys with a simulated conflict fighting over a belt as proof as to who is the best. That means they have to be better than a bunch of guys. That means they can't lose to all the other guys. If wrestling found a more "sports-based presentation," as I believe the lingo is these days, then more and more guys might tend to get over and begin to sell merchandise, get people into arenas, etc.

One thing I was thinking about the Attitude era this morning:

There didn't actually seem to be as much pressure on direction. There was clearly one, but fans didn't stop and say "I don't like what they're doing right now" in such an analytical way. I'm not saying it didn't happen, that people didn't have their golden boys and all that -- or that even the modern fan should take criticism for this -- but that things were told with such conviction and with pay-offs that you'd send the message "Such and such is a star," so Joe Blow on the internet couldn't really say "Hmm, no he isn't -- I don't think he's got enough mic skills" or whatever.

The Attempt to "push everyone" has also lead to the devaluation of the mid-card titles in my opinion


Since the Attitude Era didn't attempt to "push everyone," which lead to an acceptance amongst the wrestlers that not everyone on the roster was going to get a main-event push, it lead to the Intercontinental Title and European Titles to actually mean something.


Nowadays, you have all these guys that have won IC titles (with the false expectation that they'll become credible main-eventers one day), which has to lead to many of these "wannabe main-eventers" being artificially "above" the IC and US titles. Why? Because - many of these wrestlers have been transitional world champions in the past.


Guys like Sheamus, The Miz, Jack Swagger, Dolph Zigger, etc., etc., should be heavily involved in the IC title making the division an exciting one, but because of the WWE's "push everyone" mindset, this is not the case.


Now - you have all these guys that are "artificially" above the division when they really shouldn't be.

Good point Noid.


Here's the difference between the way Triple H was booked in 1999, compared to Seth Rollins at current. Although Triple H was initially made to look a little cowardly as a heel (i.e. being dependent on cowardly underhand tactics to win matches), the WWE eventually transitioned him into a guy that flat out defeated you with skill and brutality.


They made Triple H destroy Mick Foley in three straight matches.....cleanly!


With Rollins, we aren't really getting that impression. He looks like a guy that is a complete transitional champ that is only there because he's "The Authority's Golden Boy." Almost all his victories look flukey and cowardly. At some point, you have to make Rollins dominate a credible wrestler cleanly.

You are 100% correct here, but the WWE has to realize that this strategy is a failure. From what I see, the WWE has completely shit the bed with Bray Wyatt, Rollins, Rusev, Cesaro, Orton, Reigns, etc. Kevin Owens is really the only guy that they've booked quite well, but even for Owens, his real push will be a bit further down the road.


WWE really needs to pick 1-2 of the above (i.e. Reigns, Rollins,), and start booking them strongly. Reigns should absolutely destroy Wyatt in the next PPV, and then completely dominate Strauman or whatever his name is as well. On Rollins' end, he needs to demolish Kane, and whoever he faces after that.





yeah, Cena really is the only guy.

I agree with this. However - I will get back to my main point - that the WWE needs to go back to protecting it's 'selected' 1-2 guys of tomorrow, instead of trying to make everyone look good.


They actually were doing a terrific job with Rusev, until they split him with Lana and put him in that stupid angle with Ziggler/Summer Rae.

Sheamus defeating Orton, and then losing to Orton
 

Sheamus defeating Orton, and then losing to Orton


Here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Sheamus cleanly defeats Orton at Summerslam, and looks strong doing it, and then ends up having to job cleanly to Orton a few weeks later. My question, is why?!?!


Sheamus' character has been re-invigorated with his new image/theme, etc., while Orton is slowly on his way out (i.e. moving towards a part-time schedule). What was the point in having Orton getting a clean victory back? In the Attitude era, I don't think this would have happened. Sheamus would have won....maybe two times cleanly, and would have gone on to bigger and better things.


#Details

You guys are way off. None of the current roster has taken the ball and ran with it when give the shot. That's why Cena is still the man.

Nobody can be given the ball when Cena is there. They call him the face that runs the place and it's true besides Vince. Only time they get a shot is when Cena goes down from injury.

Well the last time I checked, wrestling results are still pre-determined, and so a wrestler can only "take the ball and run with it" if they are booked as such. :?:


Can your argument be applied to guys like Reigns, Rollins, and Wyatt? I would agree with you there. I think all three of these guys have some significant weakneses in certain areas, which might be why the WWE haven't fully gone to town with these guys.


For a guy like Daniel Bryan however who was WHITE HOT back in early 2014, he had to job to Bray Watt CLEANLY at the Rumble. The WWE felt that there would be a greater benefit in using Bryan's momentum/heat/popularity to make help Bray Wyatt build credibility......as opposed to making Bryan look like "the man" (which what they would've done in the Attitude Era).


CM Punk - same thing. When he was initially white hot back in 2011, they had him job cleanly to the semi-retired HHH in order to use Punk's momentum to rebuild Hunter. #MakeEveryoneLookGood.


During the Attitude era however, Punk would never have lost that match.


Sorry Damien Rey, but I don't really understand your criticism of my post.

Bryan and Punk had legit chances. If not for Bryan's unfortunate injuries, I think he would've had a legit shot. However - even in Bryan's push that year, I saw some stupid things. In 2014 RR for instance - how do you job Bryan cleanly to Bray Watt? That would NEVER have happened during the Attitude Era.


Same thing with Punker in 2011. How do you have him job to the semi-retired Hunter while Punk was still white hot? Again - wouldn't have happened in the Attitude era.




Attitude era = continuing the momentum of someone that is "white hot" > trying to make everyone look good.


Current era = opposite of the above.

I'm being facetious fellas. My real response is coming shortly.

I completely agree with both yourself, Heyman, and Noid as well. The 50/50 booking That's been done over the last decade has only hurt the company's ability to create big names.

Creating a pecking order of guys from top to bottom and protecting those guys accordingly is an easy and logical fix. How they've booked Lesnar and Cena is how they should book all their top guys. Obviously not to the sam level. But the conscious effort to protect them so that if and when the lose it means something, will only deepen the care fans have for the performers and create a sense of importance.

Hey, another thread for CyNick to hijack.

Common sense in wrestling dictates 50/50 booking gets you no where. Pretty much a show full of jobbers.

Just watch MMA instead.

I had a similar thought the other night when Michael Cole was freaking out the same way about Braun Stroman the exact same way he was talking about Lesnar ten minutes prior this past RAW. I thought "if Lesnar and Stroman ever were in the same ring at the same time, Cole would bust a nut and die happy".

It was more important at that point to put Wyatt over than it was Bryan. Wyatt could have been a main event heel for years to come. The way he's been booked since then has been absolute shit but making Wyatt look scary good was the right move at that time.

Exactly. Whenever there's parity in a legit sport it's looked at as a bad thing. You need teams to stand out for other teams to beat/gauge themselves against in order to raise their stature. Why in the hell would you intentionally build parity in a scripted sport? You need quite a few levels of credibility. Not "Main eventers, shit, B-show level shit."

Now it's

-John Cena and Brock Lesnar

-Everyone else on RAW

-Superstars/Catering

The observer just pointed out (DIRTSHEETZ) that Rollins is 1-15 in his last 16 matches., 1-8 if you remove house shows.

Your World Champion should never be below a 75% win percentage.

Can't wait to see that dastardly heel who gets beat 8 times out of 9 FINALLY get his comeuppance in a HUGE PPV main event situation.

Fan you're so handsome

Adam Rose said "Poop" in his recently brief promo, that was promise, but if he doesn't yell "Piss" within the next 2 months I'm out

Comeuppance usually means just the odds are twisted in the other way making him feel somewhat sympathetic because it's unfair now on the opposite. (Bound For Glory) So, they screwed it up.

I would agree if the plan was to build Bray Wyatt to being an eventual major challenger to Daniel Bryan. Wyatt wins (relatively cleanly, despite injury), and then Bryan wins the Royal Rumble. This also allows Wyatt's win to appear more than injury-related fluke.
"Yeah, you were hurt, Bryan -- but you would win the Rumble that night, and I still beat you."
Hell, you could have taken it further.
"I was the one who pushed you to grab the brass ring again. Your greatness is all an illusion I gave you as your GOD!"

The loss upset me, but my logical brain overrided my emotional one right after it, and I thought "Hang on -- this could be brilliant..." Alas.

I was literally *just* thinking about this.

The reason the IC and US Heavyweight Titles existed within their respective companies (or "territories") was because of the fact that professional wrestling was presented a lot differently then. The World Champion would either be touring or not on every show. The IC or US Champion would provide a beacon, if not exclusively for "the future," or the "workhorse" of a company -- a "guy." He may not be the guy, but he has something everyone wants. It was an underline to a guy's name.

Hot-shotting the title around may have hurt that, as has the way wrestling television is presented. Now the World Champion is usually on every show. So what does being the IC or US Champion mean? Especially now that both titles exist in WWE?

I think the easy fix is to re-establish divisions. Believe it or now, since my matured appreciation of the old-school presentation of wrestling (clarification: the simplicity and logic of wrestling), I am NOT a major fan of top-ten rankings and the such. I feel that a product that needs to be as flexible as professional wrestling should have a more organic and, dare I say, "emotional" feeling to it.

That being said, the IC and US Titles have very little added emotional investment from the guys who hold them. And that's not the fault of the guys. John Cena has been far and away the best United States Champion the WWE has ever had. Why? Because you believe that being able to call himself the United States Champion means a whole hell of a lot to him. In my opinion, Jack Swagger could easily be presented in the same league. He's not, but he definitely could be a guy that is always chasing that title.

I don't know if I've ever published this on this website, but I had this idea for Fandango where he would be the IC guy. To explain the origins of his gimmick, I had this idea that it would somehow be presented that when Pat Patterson became the first Intercontinental Champion, the big post-tournament celebration that took place in Rio de Janeiro featured Fandango's parents as dancers. The loser of the match (I don't know if there is a kayfabe explanation to who this was, and always assumed it was an unknown, but did read an example somewhere that surprised me in their celebrity -- but it doesn't really matter) would have gotten drunk in a self-pitying fashion and made a pass at a young Fandango's mother. Fandango's father -- not a professional fighter, but a proud man -- threw a punch at the ex-South American Champion, which enraged him, but security broke it up. The young Fandango would have watched and thought "Wow...when I grow up, I'm going to be the Intercontinental Champion..."

This would have made Fandango older than Johnny Curtis' shoot age, but I think that would have added to the mystique of his originally mature and manipulative gimmick (he did lure Chris Jericho -- one of the greatest Intercontinental Champions of all-time -- into a WrestleMania debut match for himself). It would have explained a real emotional connection to the IC Title for Fandango, and he could always be a guy you could switch the belt back to give new guys trial runs.

Now guys win a title, they lose a title, they win another title, they lose another title, they challenge for a title, they lose, they challenge for another title, they win. It has been reduced to a flavor of the month prop. For these titles to exist and mean something in 2015, then they need someone actually gunning for them because of what they are and what they represent. That way they actually are and represent something.

I don't think the title needs to mean you are the "#2 contender," or the "best technical wrestler." Far from it. But I do think they need to mean something, so that the guys that aren't holding it have a reason not to be.

Heyman, I don't think the WWE needs 1 or 2 guys. I don't think they need to smash guys over. Sometimes that can help, but sometimes it can hurt. They tried that with Roman Reigns and it blew up big time. And that is partially because the end-game is so apparent, and the plan transparent.

But I've heard some legendary bookers talk about their "pillars." Four or five guys they book around and protect. That makes sense, but with the way wrestling is presented again, I think some guys could use cooling off periods. That being said, I think you can definitely book people at a time like they are a pillar. Make Randy Orton the "pillar" of the US Division over a period of time where he is challenging for the only title he has never won. Obviously you do have a grander plan than that when you have a long-term viable star on your hands, but I don't think it needs to be a rigid 1-2 guy "beat everyone" plan.

That being said, they really need to commit to the guys they do want to be stars. Cesaro and Dean Ambrose immediately come to mind when I think of babyfaces that lost so much potential steam because they couldn't beat a guy when it counted. Why should fans invest in guys they can't place a bet on without missing out on their weekend beer or most recent house payment? Eventually a guy needs to return dividends so that you can say "HA! My boy did it!"

Give those blokes a chance and maybe they pan out in bigger ways than you thought. Maybe they don't catch fire and you can choose a new pillar.

I think the monster push to Roman didn't work because out of nowhere 1) Roman turned into Cena with the jokes and stopped being what made him stand out in the Shield, 2) Instead of building him up, WWE shat on everyone else to make Roman look better in comparison, and 3) Brock Lesnar exists

I'm pretty sure my boys at Squared Circle Gazette made the point that WWE doesn't really understand what good people actually do or how they act. Pretty much, when the WWE isn't trying to crazy push someone and just kind of leaving them to their own devices they get over because it's organic, and as soon as they sink their greasy claws into them, and the fans sense something in the room stinks, they crap all over it.

It wasn't the right time for Reigns. His ability wasn't there yet. And it still isn't, in my opinion. He's great in bursts, but the dude needs more of a journey. What great solo story has he had as a singles guy?

This is a great suggestion. Do you think part of it could be because the company is run by Vince McMahon, who does have that jock-bully mentality, and most people are either trying to present ideas that Vince likes so they don't get shut down?

By the way, recently got into SCG once I started listening to more podcasts. They are TREMENDOUS! I do get legitimately disappointed when Karl Jones isn't on an episode.

HAHAHA Karl is the fucking best. You need the curmudgeon on the show to balance the rest of the blokes (Who are all equally awesome and funny).

My main issue is a good babyface needs to be sympathetic. There needs to be a real struggle and they need to show wrinkles in their character. But it needs to be real. If it's not real how in the fuck can fans connect with it? If WWE wants to portray its storylines like a soap opera, then be on the television every day between 11-4pm and just go through the motions. You're on at prime time, so have a prime time level product.

Instead of having guys get hit by cars, and go after one anothers families and get thrown of bridges and light people on fire... you know... have them care about their wrestling careers and wins and losses. Have them be actually completely devestated when they lose... EVERY TIME. Talk about free agency... talk about real allegiances and loyalty, make it an actual factor. Talk about wins and losses against certain wrestlers, real strategies they need to use to win. Don't pick and choose when we're watching wrestling and when we're watching Saturday Night Live. Otherwise it's just a show that happens, and nothing else.

You want to see how to book a proper man/woman angle? Look no further than your own product circa 1991 with Jake Roberts and Randy Savage. Or look to the NWA with Dusty Rhodes and Tully Blanchard. Realistic feuds involving valets, where actual emotions were involved, and fans could actually get involved because there were true emotions.

Not this absolute horse shit with Rusev and Ziggler. Who the hell could think that shit is passable television?

I've got two words for you...

Vince McMahon

50-50 booking can work if the goal is to develop a mega rivalry like in the vein of Stone Cold vs Rock. That was a rivalry that started back in the IC level and grew over time to become one of the defining feuds of the Attitude Era.

The main reason it never worked with Cena vs Orton was because the WWE refused to make Orton be equal to Cena and them being lazy once they already had their mega star. Instead of being this generation's Rock-Austin, it felt way more forced or stale instead.

Besides already being too reliant on Cena only, the other biggest problem with WWE's 50-50 booking is it almost never leads to anything big in the long run. Either its just meaningless matches or things getting cut short because the WWE had nothing actually planned. Almost every feud going on right now has that problem and its not just due to wins being traded back and forth.

yeah that's the problem with the lack of continuity

Because of all the reasons above, I've pretty much stopped watching the current product. Until Vince dies, steps down or I hear of a major consistent improvement, I'm not tuning into RAW or any other shows every week/month.

The last time I watched RAW was a random one in June and the last time I've watched RAW two weeks in a row was the RAW before and after WM this year. The last PPV I watched was WM.

I'm just totally disinterested in the product and the storylines and guys they're pushing. I was really into Ambrose, Wyatt and Rollins but they've really fucked all of their feuds and characters up so poorly that I just gave up. Love Lesnar but he's only around occasionally and honestly, I don't care about seeing him go up against Taker again.

That being said, I'm sure I'll watch WM next year and some during WM season in the lead up to the event. WM is like the Super Bowl at this point and I will tune into WM if I can get it for $10. That and they always seem to make WM and the buildup a little better than average.

I think the talent is great, probably better than most other rosters they've ever had and you could argue the best roster ever. Everything else about the show is horrible. Completely and utterly boring, uncompelling, inconsistent, nonsensical crap.

Or if it was just to put Wyatt over period. Bryan aside. His problem now is that he can't back up his words and it makes all those scary sounding promos laughable. When he beat the big fan favorite of the day cleanly, it went so far in giving him that aura that a character like him needs. The "Undertaker auru" if you will. It should have been the start of something huge for him. Instead... Yeah. He's just another guy nowadays.

And that is the main problem. It's not so much "make everyone look good", because they really aren't doing that, it is expecting the next big thing to just develop into a homegrown, top-tier, multimedia superstar inside of 6 months... and if they can't make that happen, that talent is essentially worthless and jobs to the next 6 month project. They derail a guy/gal/team/angle/division at the expense of another, then subsequently tear down the thing they built to go a different way.

They rarely let fans take the journey with the developing rising star anymore. Revisionist WWE history will make it seem as if Austin 3:16 took the world by storm the second he walked in the door. Or, that The Rock just showed up out of nowhere and electified everyone. These guys took YEARS to get to the top. They had feuds, rivalries, face and heel turns, secondary title runs, show-stealing matches, and a few legendary promos sprinkled in over that length of time... time for them to become three dimensional characters. CM Punk wasn't big because he was an eye-rolling "indy darling" (which shouldn't always be uttered with such disgust... just because a guy makes a name for himself elsewhere shouldn't automatically earn him scorn.) Not picking on the guy, but to expect this to *just happen* for Roman Reigns was just foolishly presumptuous.

As Fan said, Bray Wyatt should have been approaching Undertaker-esque levels of phenom about now. Mankind promos and Deadman dominace in Kane-like angles. Instead, he's become a glorified manager- a player/coach who goes in and lays down for the babyface of the week. When they split off Harper and Rowan, it was like they wanted all three to just *be over* as singles competitors. They had Bray just tread water, seemed to give some sort of push to Harper, and decided selling sheep masks to the kids was all they needed to present Rowan as a babyface. After that short lived and wholly unnecessary breakup, where they DIDN'T EVEN DO THE OBVIOUS of having Harper and Rowan have a massive, proper feud, they get back together as a tag team because reasons until Erik got hurt. So now, Harper, who is doing essentially nothing, is back with Wyatt doing essentially nothing. But hey, look how massive that new guy flanking him is, huh?! He's looking imposing enough to be world champion in 6 months, right?? The focus isn't remaining where it should be. In this stable, the biggest guy shouldn't necessarily be the biggest threat. Bray should be this wicked mastermind, Luke should be his loyal leftenant, and the new guy should be a wild-card. Instead, he's the focus at the expense of the other two. Until his shelf-life of being big and tall expires. Then he'll be lost in the shuffle too and job on a regular basis to the next guy they want to build instantly, only to derail that momentum for the *next* guy...

The amount of revisionist history regarding the booking in the Attitude Era and prior is hilarious. WWE has had this same style of booking for at least 15 years. Maybe more.

Nobody remembers that Hunter was doing jobs to guys like Hank Godwinn and Marc Mero.

Rocky was losing matches to Savio Vega, and looking like a bitch against Ken Shamrock.

Foley lost to tons of guys.

The main difference between then and now is that the TALENT was much better then vs today. It's like comparing a good Montreal Canadiens to the teams of the 70s and going "the coaching just isn't up to par with the 70s".

WWE would LOVE for someone to break from the pack. But nobody wants it. The last guy who did broke his neck to get there. Well Brock did it too but he's on a unique deal. All of these guys can become the biggest star in the company, they just gotta take the ball from Cena. But nobody has the tools or the desire to do it.

It's not that Hunter was jobbing to Marc Mero. It's that he wasn't being pushed and penciled in to be world heavyweight champion back then, only to have them go "oh, nevermind". Sure, he ended up being an idea of what they wanted in a prototypical "guy" in the midst of being overshadowed by better, but SOME of that was bad luck, and he still had room and time to grow. He SLOWLY and believably "became better" (read: moved up the card) over time. His character evolved. He got things to do that didn't just disappear as corners were written into or something new came along and all of the focus had to be shifted to that instead of HHHs current angle.

And you can ask anyone here that I am far from a banner carrier for HHH, but if he had a time machine and were placed in the mix now with everything he had then, he would end up as a tremendous flop; and most of that would be through no fault of his own. They wouldn't let him organically work his way up the card... he would get a push to the moon, then, when the fans clearly vocalize they aren't buying that, they make him languish in the lower midcard/curtain jerk jobber who barely gets TV time until he gets a "he's still employed?" Timer like JTG had online. He wouldn't get a fair shake or time and exposure to grow organically.

But that's not even true. A lot of people on here act like everyone went on this steady upward trajectory to the top. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Hunter was at a certain level, then was pushed down, then back up, then right to top with the original DX, then kinda back down to mid card with face DX, then slowly up from there. Then as champ he was booked like a CS heel. It wasn't until his 3rd run as world champ that they really started to make him a killer, and primarily that was because Foley was a crazy person willing to do anything.

Rock had an early push, then fell off the face of the earth, then up and down. Until he reached the heights he did.

I'm pretty sure well all remember that. The key with the attitude era was they were forced into certain situations to put immensely talented and ready guys into certain spots which helped the company succeed. They were forced because they had competition. Now they don't. So when things get stagnant and mediocre, they can just remain as such. Yeah their is some nibbles and bites of change, but then Vince goes "Nah I'm not feeling this" and kind of goes back to status quo and we get backstage segments with fart jokes.

I disagree. Once a wrestler proved themselves worthy of a push, the WWE got completely behind said guy and pushed him huge. Austin in 97', Rocky/Hunter in 98/99, Angle (to a certain extent) in 2000/2001, Lesnar in 2002, Orton/Cena/Batista in 2004. Nowadays, this 50/50 non-sense in an effort to make everyone look credible, is having an adverse effect.

Yes, but that was before their big pushes. The WWE didn't start going 'crazy' with Rocky and Hunter until shortly before Summerslam 1998. After that, both guys were protected big time and only lost to 'bottom feeders/mid carders' in an extremely flukey way.


Same thing with Cena. Obviously - in 2002/2003, Cena was doing his fair share of jobs as part of 'paying dues', but once he proved himself worthy, etc., the WWE strapped a rocket to his chest and protected him greatly. Hence - Cena's rapid rise and dominance throughout 2004, which allowed him to get to the top in 2005.


Orton from late 2003-Summerslam 2004 = same thing. Batista from around mid/late 2004 - Wrestlemania 2005 = same thing.

During his peak (mid 1997-2000), who did Foley really lose to outside of Austin, Kane, Undertaker, Rocky, and Hunter? He lost to NAO who were being groomed to be the top tag team in the WWE.


Between 1997-2000, a clean win over Foley in a feud usually indicated that said wrestler was going to get pushed big time. A victory over Foley usually meant something special.

I agree with you to a certain extent, but I think the WWE could have done a better job in elevating certain guys that clearly deserved better (i.e. Rusev).


Do you mean to tell me that CM Punk circa 2011 wasn't worthy enough to break away from the pack? How did Hunter squashing Punk in 2011.......when Punk was white hot.......help Punk or the business at all?

I will admit a bias when it comes to Punk. I think he's a heck of a worker, but I never saw him as someone who could be "the guy". He just looks like someone who came off a 4 day heroin binge. If I were WWE I wouldnt want him to be the face of the franchise, and I think he's the type of guy who would limit the growth of the company.

That said, I dont think one win or one loss to a guy with Hunter's stature will hurt your push no matter who you are. Just like Austin never got hurt losing two huge matches to Bret Hard squeaky clean. If you have talent, the fans will see that. Heck, Daniel Bryan lost to Wyatt and he was still the most over guy in the company for a period of time.

I think Punk got over to the portion of the audience that likes him, and he did great. But I dont think he had the ability to be a guy like Austin or Rock who brought in casual fans.

Foley is a good example of a guy who came in right off the bat to main event spot with Taker. He "won" one match, and then was beaten like a drum by Taker for months. Then when that program was done he was in no mans land for months. Somehow Foley managed to get himself back to the top of the card and reached much higher heights years later. Why? Because he was talented.

So I dont have sympathy for a guy like Kevin Owens who got to debut in a program with the guy who has run the place for a decade. Thats a big deal. Do you think Neville would have preferred working three high profile matches with Cena or that program with the actor guy and Stardust? Its up to Kevin Owens to scratch and claw and prove he is BETTER than Cena, so he can take his spot. Thats what I think guys are missing today.

I do understand what you are saying about it appearing that back in the Attitude Era there appeared to be more clearly defined levels. Opening card guy, then IS tile level guys, then main eventers, then your top guy. Now its more of a thing where one month you could be working a program with a main eventer, but then next month you are in some random IC level program. Is that hurting getting guys to the next level? Possibly. But Im not convinced. I still maintain if you have the talent, you cant be held down forever.

Mankind won most of their early encounters. Including a Boiler Room Brawl that saw Bearer turn on Taker.

I cannot fathom the logic in arguing performers in a scripted sport "scratch and claw" or that guys are "missing" such a trait in an environment where their development and direction is determined by somebody else no matter their talent or desire. Makes no sense.

Well maybe if Kevin Owens were talented enough to put on good matches with Cena instead of the three shitty ones he had, he'd be over! Or if Bray Wyatt could cut a halfway decent promo, he wouldn't have become a boring, directionless character! Definitely their fault. Not the brilliant writers.

I mean... these are the guys who wrote such meticulous, well thought out things as"Brie Bella has gone from Nikki's mortal enemy/slave for a month to her best friend in such a flawlessly written transition, you didn't even notice!" and "Wade Barrett is a badass bareknuckle fighter as these vignettes hyping his return will show you... SWERVE! He's a generic chicken shit heel a week later!". Probably should release those shitty guys like Owens and Wyatt and sign some guys who can shine under their brilliant light.

Exactly. It's not that there isn't a constant upward gain, it's that pretty much any momentum someone has gained in recent history has had that momentum over-calculated (Ryback, for example) or WWE hits the reset button (Cesaro).

Go back to when Zack Ryder had his massive popularity spike. Naysayers act as if he didn't deserve it or that fans instantly wanted him as WWE Champion. It is this "all or nothing" line of thinking WWE has come to adopt that has hurt guys in the long run. Instead of using his self-made internet fame as a stepping stone to more TV time, better booking, and storylines to keep fans invested, they kept him off TV, save for backstage cameos. He barely got matches, and usually when he did, he wasn't picking up the win. Eventually, this leads to fans feeling like chumps for liking the guy and not getting any payoff. Yes, he got a short US title run, but that was after he was cooling off, and it didn't help matters that they didn't keep him at that level. They dropped him back down the card where he remained until only recently, and that's on the NXT tag scene.

I legitimately feel WWE is just trying to "create" not just the next breakout superstar, but specifically, the next Rock. And I'm not meaning that in any similarities and family ties with Roman, I mean that they want to manufacture a fan favorite, bill him as a legit WHC contender, and farm him out to Hollywood while still under the WWE banner instead of him deciding to move on after having done everything in wrestling. And if nobody has that instant spark, then they aren't worth investing effort into... at least until, say Cena gets injured or Brock has an MMA fight looming and they go into panic mode. They wouldn'thave to panic if they quit losing interest and build reps credible enough to stand in.

One of my favorite matchups in recent WWE history is Dolph Ziggler and Kofi Kingston. Whenever they have a 1 on 1, they tear the goddamn house down. In all the time they've been in WWE, these two should have been headlining PPVs by now, and it would have been believable, because they could have been built to be actual title threats. Instead, they constantly tried to keep Kofi as the kid friendly high-flyer, and Dolph was (and still is) being used as a prop in stories happening to the women around him... Vicki, AJ, Summer Rae/Lana. The best setup they gave the guy was that Survivor Series win, and... they didn't do shit with it. Cesaro got a false start becoming a Real American, thenanother becoming a Heyman Guy, then another with AtG Battle Royal win... each time, he either fucked off of TV or transitioned away with haphazard akwardness. The best time for Curtis Axel to be on his way was with Heyman, and they took that opportunity to make him look like a foolish meatshield instead, then made him go away.

Again, too much "all or nothing". Nobody will ever be important if they're all pushed then completely dropped. Nor will they gain anything by simply going by "the look" before there is any character of substance for fans to attach to... and then just dismissing the people the fans are actually getting behind because they "don't see why". They have 5 hours national TV time a week (not counting The Network), they have gotten more people over more reliably back when they only had 1 hour live and a weekend syndicated pre-taping. Its baffling.

You do know it's scripted, right?

The Ryder stuff really didn't play to his strengths. The dude has shown pretty much no growth or improvement over the past four years, but he was over and should have been presented better. I don't know how much of it was Vince and how much of it was Ryder himself, but trying to have him "act" in storylines with Kane? Dumb. But Ryder just needs to want it more, I guess.

The push abandonment of Cesaro have sincerely ruined my interest in professional wrestling. I'd also include the plateauing of Dean Ambrose. It's a similar situation with two very different talents -- they can't buy a major singles win.

the thing is, there's nothing wrong with being a mid-carder.... as long as the mid-carders are presented as a big deal. Not just "another" guy. WWE/WWF at their strongest always had an incredibly credible mid-card, with versatile guys who people would pay to see. It was all part of the act. Nowadays, there's amazing mid-card talent, but they aren't given anything that isn't generic. Nothing to stand out. They literally could have anybody placed in their feuds and it wouldn't make a difference.

If you have a strong mid card, then anybody working with anybody looks credible because everybody is over.

What exactly does a guy need to do to "grab the brass ring"/"show he wants it badly enough"?

Agreed. It really bothers me when a guy loses an IC Title match one month and then goes over and challenges for the US Title the next. There was a period recently where the challengers for the IC and US Titles literally just swapped over.

This is a great question. With VERY few exceptions, EVERY segment, promo, interview and match is so scripted, planned and controlled, often by the same people working behind the scenes, who (apparently) rehash the same shitty ideas over and over again with no long term plans or direction.

Tnere was a time where being just a CHALLENGER for the IC title meant you were a big deal.

You hear all the time about how guys should question and challenge more, go directly to Vince, come up with their own creative, etc. but I just can't see how any of that pays off without guys being labelled as "difficult". They talk about nobody having "passion" or "wanting it" but there are clearly guys on the roster that do.

No.

He won that ONE PPV match. That was it. The rest was Taker coming back and dominating.

Its literally the same booking as Cena-Owens. New guy gets one big win, established guy comes back and wins multiple fights to get his heat back. And the reality is Foley's win over Taker was kinda lame because it wasnt a real match, if memory serves, the match was won basically by Taker not being able to get into the ring. And it was only after the Bearer turn. At least Owens went over Cena clean.

Yup.

What does it have to do with the discussion?

Do you think Cesaro cuts a main event level promo?

That was 1985 dude

Do you know what Cesaro did to get in trouble most recently?

Cena, Batista, Orton, and Lesnar all had some 'warts'
 

Cena, Batista, Orton, and Lesnar all had some 'warts'


Cena and Batista weren't the greatest in the ring, Orton was a prima-donna with a shitty attitude, while Lesnar's mic skills were quite sub-par. Although Lesnar was a tremendous wrestler obviously, his ring psychology and the "sports entertainment" side of things, etc. needed some significant work (perhaps like Cesaro does today).


However - despite the shortcomings of the aforementioned four wrestlers, all four guys were pushed extremely hard once the WWE deemed them ready. Why?!!? Because - The Attitude Era for the WWE had ended, and the company desperately needed new stars to replace Austin and Rocky.


Hence - despite Cena, Batista, Orton, and Lesnar being kind of 'green' and having various 'warts' as performers, the WWE bit the proverbial boner and pushed them hard......and all 4 men achieved great success.


-Orton and Batista became solid main-eventers
-Cena became the Franchise of the WWE (10 years and counting)
-Lesnar became a huge star in both the wrestling world and MMA world.


Was it all rosy? Of course not. Lesnar had the world handed to him, and then decided to leave. Orton became a huge pain in the ass backstage and his pushes were cancelled often times. Batista's ego also spiralled out of control for awhile (before Booker T knocked the shit out him backstage). Anyone with pubic hair disliked Cena's character post Spring 2005.


However - I would argue that the positives of pushing Cena, Orton, Batista, and Lesnar CLEARLY outweighed the negatives.


Fast forward to today, and I think the WWE is in a similar spot to where they were in 2002/2003. The John Cena era is in its twilight, and the company needs new stars to take the "reigns" (Roman Reigns!) so to speak.


Are Roman Reigns, Bray Wyatt, Seth Rollins, and Cesaro perfect? No. All 4 wrestlers have their warts.......just as Cena, Batista, Orton, and Lesnar had their warts and shortcomings. However - I think it might be a wise strategy for the WWE to simply strap rockets to their chests and push the hell out of them.


Even though Rollins is heel - book him strong. Have him dominate his opponents with amazing speed, skill, etc. If the fans start cheering, good on them. Make Rollins look as amazing as possible. Ditto for Reigns. Have Reigns dominate everyone in site. If the fans don't like it, tough noogies. Hell - you can flip Rollins/Reigns if it gets real bad.


Wyatt and Cesaro - push them strong as well. Cesaro has paid his dues. Fans are ready to ejaculate their penises over Cesaro. Wyatt also needs to be booked strong again before fans start losing interest in his creepy promos (that almost never come to fruition).


Push
-Reigns
-Rollins
-Wyatt
-Cesaro


Strong as fuck, and make them this generation's version of Cena, Orton, Lesnar, Batista.

To be fair, even after the initial 2 wins, Mankind ended up buried. Literally. But then, so did Taker.

Mankind won the 2 first encounters an take won the rest:

<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr><td>http://profightdb.com/img/flags/us.gif WWF Monday Night Raw Taping
Nov 18th 1996</td><td width="22%">The Undertaker</td><td width="9%">def. (pin)</td><td width="22%">Mankind</td><td>
</td><td>
</td></tr><tr class="chequered"><td>http://profightdb.com/img/flags/us.gif WWF Survivor Series '96
Nov 17th 1996</td><td width="22%">The Undertaker</td><td width="9%">def. (pin)</td><td width="22%">Mankind</td><td>
</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>http://profightdb.com/img/flags/us.gif WWF In Your House 11: Buried Alive
Oct 20th 1996</td><td width="22%">The Undertaker</td><td width="9%">def. </td><td width="22%">Mankind</td><td>"Buried Alive"</td><td>
</td></tr><tr class="chequered"><td>http://profightdb.com/img/flags/us.gif WWF MSG Show (Sep '96)
Sep 29th 1996</td><td width="22%">Shawn Michaels & The Undertaker</td><td width="9%">def. (pin)</td><td width="22%">Goldust & Mankind</td><td>
</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>http://profightdb.com/img/flags/ca.gif WWF Xperience
Aug 24th 1996</td><td width="22%">The Undertaker</td><td width="9%">def. </td><td width="22%">Mankind</td><td>casket</td><td>
</td></tr><tr class="chequered"><td>http://profightdb.com/img/flags/us.gif WWF SummerSlam '96
Aug 18th 1996</td><td width="22%">Mankind</td><td width="9%">def. (pin)</td><td width="22%">The Undertaker</td><td>"Boiler Room Brawl"</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>http://profightdb.com/img/flags/us.gif WWF Monday Night Raw Taping
Jul 22nd 1996</td><td width="22%">Ahmed Johnson</td><td width="9%">def. (pin)</td><td width="22%">Goldust, Justin Bradshaw, Mankind, Marc Mero, Owen Hart, Savio Vega, Steve Austin, Sycho Sid, The British Bulldog, The Undertaker</td><td>11-man battle royale</td><td>
</td></tr><tr class="chequered"><td>http://profightdb.com/img/flags/us.gif WWF King of the Ring '96
Jun 23rd 1996</td><td width="22%">Mankind</td><td width="9%">def. (pin)</td><td width="22%">The Undertaker</td></tr></tbody></table>

My bad. I forgot the KOTR. Still. Same idea. Mankind wins early, Taker came back and dummied. At the end Mick was back in the mid card and Taker was still headlining.

Its not that easy though.

If you saw RAW you would see that Reigns is not ready to carry the ball. They could protect him with a mouthpiece, but to be a real top guy week in week out you need to be able to speak. Roman struggles. At best he should be a silent heel with a guy like Heyman.

Rollins is being pushed and I think will slowly be booked to win more matches. He beat Sting, he will beat Kane, and we'll see what's next.

Wyatt is a strange one. I enjoy the uniqueness of his promos. I love the whole presentation of his character, but I don't think he connects well with the audience when it comes to promos. He's an example of a guy who works to the hardcore fans. I think fans like holding up their cell phones for his entrance, but then they get quiet. I think he's a guy who can occasionally main event, but never be the man.

Cesaro I'm on the fence about. I've seen him improve a lot in the last year, and i would love to see him get a real one on one program to see what he does with it. He reminds me of Reigns in terms of promos, but I feel he has more natural charisma.

Theres no need to force guys into main event status. They tried to push Reigns quickly and the fans rejected it at least partially. Cena is still there and going strong. But he needs new dance partners. I think Big E has really elevated his game. I wish Xavier Woods was bigger. I think Kevin Owens is the best new guy they have. And in NXT I'm curious where Apollo Crews ends up.

Where will Apollo Crews end up? A place called Midcard Hell; population 1,203.

I think they'll strap the rocket to Crews, he's everything Vince loves

Don't get me wrong; he's great but WWE just have such a bad track record.

When WWE gets a 5 tool player they usually hit it out of the park.

It depends on how you define it. He's not great with scripted WWE-style monologues, but he's improved a lot with them. I think he if he were allowed to keep it short, sweet and to his own personal flavor, he could get quite good.

He actually had a mouthpiece last year. A mouthpiece that was party to the ending of The Undertaker's streak. It was a beautiful legacy to bestow upon the next generation of wrestler. But then they had to have the world-beater go and get beaten by the world.

Johnny Curtis is the perfect WWE Superstar. Just sayin'.

Also, Ryback was everything Vince loves. They booked him as a monster, put him in the main event picture, and unlike Reigns... the crowd fucking ate it up. Everything went right.

... So naturally they started making him job to everyone including Mark Henry CLEAN at WrestleMania and then turned him heel and fed him to Cena.

Genius.

Damien Sandow is pretty great all around, too. Tons of charisma. Got pretty fucking over.

... So naturally, instead of keeping him featured at some point during the 5 hours of "A show" TV they produce weekly, they quickly blew off his feud on Raw and now he's jobbing to NXT guys in dark matches.

Brilliant.

Ryback is like the example. He should be a much bigger deal.

Johnny Curtis should be a star by now.

To be honest, I've only watched RAW about a dozen or so times over the past 5-6 years.


But again - you said it yourself - His flaws can be covered, just as Lesnar's weak promo abilities were covered by Heyman back in the day.


And like I said - why is there this notion that a wrestler has to be "almost perfect" in order to get a rocket strapped to his chest? As I pointed out, guys like Cena, Batista, Orton, and Lesnar all had some 'shortcomings' in different ways, but the WWE still pushed them once they got to a certain level..........and they pushed them HARD.


If Reigns is/was struggling and was getting booed out of the building, why not roll with it like they did with Cena? (i.e. Cena kept getting pushed despite fans over the age of 12 hating on him). Keep pushing Reigns and you could always turn him heel if reactions continue to be "loud boos."


In Rollins' case, have him be the opposite of Reigns (i.e. a heel that eventually gets major love/face reactions from the crowd due to him cleanly and dominantly defeating the opposition with pure skill, speed, and athleticism.


Everything you said is true here, but again - why is there this operating assumption that "a guy has to be almost perfect in order to receive a huge push?" Again - I point to the Cena, Orton, Lesnar, Batista comparison.


Even though Reigns received negative reactions, the reactions were still huge. Why not roll with it? Why not slowly turn Reigns heel with those types of reactions? (while at the same time, having Reigns booked as a guy that dominates his opposition).

Yeah but then thats limiting. For better or worse, to headline, almost every guy needs to be able to carry a promo. You can make exceptions for guys with certain gimmicks, but the reality is you need to develop the skill to hang.

It was okay to put Heyman with Cesaro while Lesnar was off, but it lessens Heyman's impact if he has a stable of guys. And as babyface, I dont think a manager makes sense.

I never understood the appeal of Ryback. I think he was another guy who would only take you so far. Yeah fans like chanting "feed me more" but outside of that, when I hear him cut a promo, I dont think headliner. And his matches leave something to be desired. Also not sure of any backstage issues with him which could have hurt his push.

You've been watching sports entertainment for a long time right? Do you REALLY think Sandow had the tools to headline? Or was he just a comedy guy that clicked in a comedy spot?

Its like saying Santino or Zack Ryder should have been headlining because they got some pops. Hell Fandango should have been given an 18 month run with the WWE title based on some of his reactions. Be real man.

Cena never struggled cutting a promo like Reigns does. Cena eventually became hated by a small portion of the audience. But it wasnt go away heat. To me Reigns got a crazy amount of go away heat on Monday. You could put him with a manager to prevent him from talking (kinda like the role he had in The Shield), but again, thats limiting. I mean it basically means he cant be the #1 baby. Probably needs to be turned heel ASAP.

Cena is far and away better than anyone else on the roster, espcially the new wave of guys trying to move up. So lets not include him in any comparisons. If they had another Cena, that guy would be headlining with Cena. Lesnar was a freak of nature and a super athlete. Again, nobody they have now is close to him.

Orton and Batista had some warts (Batista more than Orton) and they did get big pushes, but both guys were super talented. Batista had a really unique look, and was good enough in the ring. Orton was more of the total package, but just needed experience. Again my thing is, if these guys are not ready or not good enough, why push them? You got lots of other guys who would like the shot. Keep throwing things against the wall until something sticks.

That's just part of a bigger story. You'd be able to see that if you'd get your head out of Meltzer's ass!

None of those guys are headline material. Is anybody even saying they are? But each of them could be more valuable to the product than they are, and that's on creative/Vince.

Before he turned into a comedy act, Sandow definitely could've been a midcard-upper midcard player

There should be chemistry experiments going on backstage and guys paired up based on how organic they are together.

WWE doesn't Science enough brah.

They should take anyone that the crowd loves(Cesaro atm, modern day DB) and pit him against someone that they want(Rollins, Cena) and boom they have a main event that everyone can stomach.

Sandow could have been in that equation, but now he has to come back possibly in a new gimmick and start all over.



I'm speaking for my demographic, 18-34 aged gentlemen, but the current Roman Reigns/Wyatt Family stuff is old and predictable. Sure, they can put on matches like no other, but w/o a good reason for them to fight it's pointless.

The Cesaro and Rollins/Cena feud is served on a silver platter. The Fans v.s. WWE. Cesaro doesn't have to do much, just let the fans do the work. He just has to point at his sections and go out there every once in awhile and make fart jokes during vignettes.

Preaching to the choir though

Rryback is the IC champ and on RAW every week. That's upper mid card. Probably right where he belongs.

IMO Sandow at best is a tag guy or maybe should just be a mouthpiece for someone. Either way I don't think people decide to or not to watch based on his spot on the card. He was never going to be a difference maker.

They should have done SOMETHING with Sandow after his Mizdow run.... like anything.

Could have been by now had the WWE not squandered his MitB run by doing the typical push killing because they sudden lost interest and rather be focused on Cena again.

I think he lost the MITB case because They wanted to combine the belts and thought "shit we gotta get rid of this briefcase soon."

<font color=goldenrod>Oh shit, CyNick just talked down about Fandango to #1-wwf-fan. I think the seeds might be planted for our matchup for Real TPWW Fights #2.</font>

Yeah that played a big role. As well as the WWE suddenly wanting another Cena-Orton feud when the crowds were against that idea.

Him losing the case wasn't horrible in general, just the way it was done and how he got treated afterwards. Don't think he ever wanted revenge or anything but just took the loss and then did nothing of importance till the Mizdow gimmick.

I don't know why everyone has to be headliner material to be taken seriously or given meaningful investment. It doesn't have to be this black and white, headliner or bust mentality. That's why they're in the current predicament they're in with no credible main eventers except Cena and Lesnar.

In all reality, you're only really going to have one headline, face of the company attraction. It was Hogan, or Austin, and now Cena. Those three are clearly not interchangeable. However, if you book the next level of talent to be of significance and present them as important then you at least have credible quasi main eventers who could be the opposition to your main star or even, as in CM Punk or Daniel Bryan's case, high enough that they're the number two guy who can have a Mania main event and be able to sell it.

Thinking you have to have nothing but mega star caliber talents is never going to be realistic. There has to be a pecking order in place where you have talent who's good enough to main event and have fans believe in it even if everyone knows Cena is still the man.

Jesus Christ, between the inability to grasp that there's a huge middle ground between headlining and jobbing in dark matches and the "But losing to Cena isn't a bad thing" argument...

You either have the comprehension of a 3 year old or you're blatantly ignoring things so you can argue shit no one else is saying in order to feel right about something. Which is it?

Oh, I assumed that part of what he said was actually genuine.

This is basically the point we're at now...

CyNick: "Seth Rollins losing to John Cena isn't a bad thing."

"No one said it was."

CyNick: "LOL explain to me how losing to the face of the company is a bad thing."

"Damien Sandow was over and has tons of charisma and should be featured somewhere in the show."

"Do you REALLY think he can headline!? Come on!"

"..."

I'd also argue that CyNick missed the main point of the Taker-Foley feud:

It more or less reinvigorated 'Taker's career. There was like a 7 year stretch where Taker was facing large men who were the drizzling shits in the ring, and couldn't draw shit. Mankind was the feud he needed. Beyond just the matches, Mankind was a compelling foil for the Dead Man. A man who can't be hurt is hard to build sympathy for. You need something different, a guy with no regard for his own wellbeing. It didn't hurt that he could work.

Taker-Foley makes more sense if you look at the before and the aftermath: Before, Taker was a midcard special attraction. After, Taker was a main eventer. Foley debuted and became the special attraction.

I never said Taker-Foley was bad

What I said was it was similar to a lot of the feuds with Cena, where Cena will put a guy over in the first big match, but then eventually edge out the series. The difference is things move faster today than they did in 1996, so feuds last 3-4 months instead of 6-8.

But in my opinion some people are remembering Taker putting over Foley, and pretending like he came in, Taker put him over, and he stayed in the main event from then on. The REALITY of the program was Taker lost initially at KOTR, and then the bogus finish at Summerslam. But from then on and for a good 6 months, it was nothing but Taker beating Foley left and right. And after that, Foley went way down the card in random programs.

Its pretty much the same thing that happened with guys like Rusev and Owens, who got a nice rub from working with Cena, and even beating him, but ultimately lost the feud and moved down the card.