Thread: QUESTION - In your opinion, what should the "life cycle" of a WWE Wrestler be?
View Single Post
Old 02-12-2009, 05:46 PM   #14
Mr. Nerfect
 
Posts: 61,634
Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter Heyman Hindu View Post
Agreed.

However - I think it's important for the WWE to make a distinction between those that...
.
.
.

A) Have a "chance at rising" (i.e. '3's)

B) Are ON the rise (i.e. '4's).
.
.
.

In other words - I have absolutely no problem with a '5' or a '6' or even a '2' defeating a '3' if it makes him look good.

So - If Big Show defeats R-Truth cleanly, I have no beef.

If Shawn Michaels beats a guy like Kofi Kingston or The Brian Kendrick, I have no problem either. If Evan Bourne gets spanked by Kane, no big problem as far as I go.

The only time I have a problem is when "4's" are....

A) Not getting sufficient television time in order to showcase their stuff

B) Getting beaten cleanly and convincingly by "6's"....or even worse "2's" and "3's!"

At this stage in his development, there is no f'cking reason why CM Punk should be getting destroyed by Jericho or doing a job to Regal. In his match with Jericho for instance, it should've been a very close match....with Jericho barely winning the cheating.

CM Punk should have DOMINATED Regal in both their matches.

Jeff Hardy should never have been squashed by a guy like Kozlov late last year.

THOSE are the sort of things that I have a problem with.

Furthermore - if both shows have an even distribution of '5's' and '6's', then it makes it tough for 4's to get sufficient air-time in order to showcase their stuff.

In the last 4 years for instance - is it any coincidence that we haven't really seen anyone NEW emerge from the mid-cards?....and that the same guys still dominate the main-event spots?

Rey Mysterio is basically the only '4' that got converted into a '5' within the last FOUR years.

Long story short - I think it's quite apparent that the current 'set up' is simply not condusive in producing STARS (i.e. 4's converting to 5's). In order for things to change, '4's need an environment where they are not getting shit-kicked by '6's' AND where they can get more air-time.
Would you not consider Jeff Hardy a rising star that became a main eventer?

One thing that I do really like about your categorisation, is that it pretty much makes booking propsositional logic. I mean, it removes a lot of the variables that trip up the writing staff. If everyone had a code assigned to them, then you'd never get, for example (going back a few years now), a CM Punk losing his undefeated streak to Hardcore Holly.

Regardless of whether they allocate the shows as you suggest, some sort of code that allows the writing team to know who exactly should go over who when they book guys against each other, would be quite handy. I think they do have a priority list, for guys that they really want pushed and fast, but you still get the occasional faux pas in consistent booking, that something like this would eliminate.
Mr. Nerfect is offline   Reply With Quote